Cognitivism

Summary: The cognitivist paradigm essentially argues that the “black box” of the mind should be opened and understood. The learner is viewed as an information processor (like a computer).

Originators and important contributors: Merrill -Component Display Theory (CDT), Reigeluth (Elaboration Theory), Gagne, Briggs, Wager, Bruner (moving toward cognitive constructivism), Schank (scripts), Scandura (structural learning)

Keywords: Schema, schemata, information processing, symbol manipulation, information mapping, mental models

Cognitivism

The cognitivist revolution replaced behaviorism in 1960s as the dominant paradigm. Cognitivism focuses on the inner mental activities – opening the “black box” of the human mind is valuable and necessary for understanding how people learn. Mental processes such as thinking, memory, knowing, and problem-solving need to be explored. Knowledge can be seen as schema or symbolic mental constructions. Learning is defined as change in a learner’s schemata.

A response to behaviorism, people are not “programmed animals” that merely respond to environmental stimuli; people are rational beings that require active participation in order to learn, and whose actions are a consequence of thinking. Changes in behavior are observed, but only as an indication of what is occurring in the learner’s head. Cognitivism uses the metaphor of the mind as computer: information comes in, is being processed, and leads to certain outcomes.

Cognitivism:

Procedure of topic

◎CognitivismWhat is cognitivism? Briefly speaking, cognitivism means through interaction and self cognition development to acquire knowledge, and concern what learner know and how to use efficiency way to processing information.

◎Information processing theorySince behaviorism had weakness, and computer was invented, so another theory that stimulate computer was created, it’s cognitivism. First we want to talk is information processing theory, here’s the flow of information processing

Information processing theory

◎Piaget and VygotskyPiaget's cognitive development theory mentioned some points. First is schema, he think since that time when people were born, they acquire knowledge by using our basic behavior model and reacting with environment, and he call it schema, when people encounter things, they use schema to deal with things, when children learn language, they can easily distinguish the word’s shape and meaning is also because they have schema about the word. Second is assimilation, accommodation and equilibration, if people get well with assimilation and accommodation, equilibration happens; but if people don’t get well with them, then disequilibrium happens. Piaget through experiment arranged stages of cognitive development to improve from child to teenagers, how cognitive development change. From Piaget’s theory, we can see Piaget proved that child mind development is active, he also proved that every children through the same cognitive development stages and he points out the change in quality and quantity, and every children’s cognitive development speed is not all the same. Vygotsky’s idea is a little different with Piaget, Piaget thought people change because of inherent change, and ignored the importance of social reaction, but Vygotsky thought people start to react with society when they were born, so social culture not only effect adult, children as well, Vygotsky’s cognitive development is from outside to inside, and he thought egocentric speech is very important, because it's the way they can relieve emotion but help them thinking, it's also different from Piaget. From Vygotsky's idea we mentioned above, he inferred zone of proximal is important, he thought teacher should give children proper help that children can achieve best performance.

◎Bruner and AusubelIn cognitivism, another two famous theorists are Bruner, who invented discovery learning theory. And Ausubel, who invented meaningful learning theory. There are two points in Bruner's theory, one is discovery learning theory, another is cognitive representation theory. Although he invented representation theory, but he didn’t stand that teach should broke into age or grade, because people have individual difference, so teacher should teach by individual students’ mind development, teach them how to think and get notions from activities, then process to their own experience, it’s the main point of discovery learning theory.

Ausubel’s meaningful learning theory, just like discovery learning theory, all belongs to cognitive structure theory, but there are some differences between them, Ausubel’s meaningful learning theory demonstrate learning can only created by students who have enough prior knowledge, it’s the main idea of meaningful learning, Ausubel also divided cognitive structure into derivative and correlate subsumption, superordinate and combinatorial learning.

◎Application in InstructionHow do we apply cognitivism into instruction? From information we learned above, we clearly understand how to apply cognitivism into instruction. First, we should know what is students' prior knowledge, because it will decide what instructional material should design, and make knowledge meaningful. Second, we should use the concept of information processing theory to arrange the easiest method and help student memorize, we also need to organize new information and relate to existing memory, it's also make student easy to memorize information. Third, we should let student active research, give proper help when students have question, this idea fits discovery learning theory and zone of approximate development.

After all of this. can you retrieve and arrange what you just learn? Maybe you can try to write it down and compare with our arrangement.

Explain

What is Cognitivism

Through interaction and self cognition development to acquire knowledge, and concern what learner know and how to use efficiency way to processing information.

Theorist

Piaget(Schema, Assimilation, Accommodation, Equilibration and Disequilibrium, Cognitive development stages), Vygotsky(Egocentric speech, Zone of aproximal development), Brunar(Discovery learning, Cognitive representation), Ausubel (Meaningful learning, Prior knowledge, Cognitive Structure)

Apply in instruction

Know what is students' prior knowledge, and make knowledge meaningful.

Use the concept of information processing theory to arrange learning material and help student memorize, we also need to organize new information and relate to existing memory.Let student active research, give proper help when students have question.

Cognitivism

During the 1960s, discontent with the inadequacies of behaviourism another school of

thought was developing besides the behavioural thinking, the cognitive aspects. The

behaviourist perspective could not easily explain why people attempt to organise and

make sense of the information they learn. One example includes remembering general

meanings rather than word for word information. Among learning psychologists there

emerged a growing realisation that mental events or cognition could no longer be

ignored

Cognitive psychologists share with behaviourists the belief that the study of learning

should be objective and that learning theories should be developed from the results of

empirical research. However, cognitivists disagree with the behaviourists in one critical

aspect. By observing the responses that individuals make to different stimulus

conditions, cognitivists believe that they can draw inferences about the nature of the

internal cognitive processes that produce those responses.

Many ideas and assumptions of cognitivism can be traced back to the early decades of

the twentieth century. Of all theories, the theories of Jean Piaget of Switzerland are the

ones that have provided psychology with very elaborated account of developmental

changes in cognitive abilities.

Jean Piaget (1896-1980).

Jean Piaget was one of the most influential cognitive psychologist. He was a student of

biology and zoology and learnt that survival requires adaptation. Therefore he viewed

the development of human cognition, or intelligence, as the continual struggle of a very

complex organism trying to adapt to a very complex environment. According to Piaget´s

theory, human development can be outlined in terms of functions and cognitive

structures. The functions are inborn biological processes that are identical for every one

and stay unchanged throughout our lives. The purpose of these functions is to construct

internal cognitive structures. The structures, in contrast, changes repeatedly as the

child grows (Vasa, R., Haith, M.M., Miller,S.A.,1995, p.,33).

Piaget emphasises on two main functions; one is organisation (or equilibrium).

Organisation refers to the fact that all cognitive structures are interrelated and that any

new knowledge must be fitted into the existing system. It is the need to integrate the

new information, rather than adding them on, that force our cognitive structure to

become more elaborate.

The second general function is adaptation. Adaptation refers to the tendency of the

organism to fit with its environment in ways that promote survival. It is composed of two

terms; assimilation and accommodation.

Assimilation is the tendency to understand new experience in terms of existing

knowledge. Whenever we come across something new, we try to make sense of it, built

upon our existing cognitive structures.

Accommodation occurs when the new information is too complex to be integrated into

the existing structure - this means that, cognitive structures change in response to new

experiences (Spencer, K., 1991,p.,175).

Piaget did many experiments on children’s way of thinking and concluded that human

beings go through several distinct stages of cognitive development. Each stage

involves the acquisition of new skills and rest upon the successful completion of the

preceding one.

The first stage is the sensorimotor, (0-2year). Until about four months of age, the infant

can not differentiate itself from the environment. Gradually the child learns to distinguish

people from objects and that both have an existence independent of their immediate

perception. This stage draws it name, sensorimotor, from that the child learns mainly by

touching objects, manipulating them and physically exploring the environment. By the

end of this stage the child understands that its environment has distinctive and stable

properties.

The next stage is called the pre-operational (2years-7years). This is the stage when the

child acquires a mastery of a language and becomes able to use words to represent

objects and images in a symbolic fashion. Piaget terms this stage pre-operational

because children are not yet able to use their developing mental capabilities

systematically. At this stage children are egocentric, which means that the child has the

tendency to interpret the world exclusively with its own position. The child does not

understand, for an example, that others see things and objects from a different

perspective from their own. During this phase of development the children have no

general understanding of categories of thought that adults take for granted, ideas such

as causality, speed, weight or number.

The third stage is the concrete operational period (7years-11years). During this period

children master abstract, logical notions. They are able to handle ideas such as

causality without much difficulty, and they are fit to carry out the mathematical

operations of multiplying, dividing and subtracting. By this stage children are much less

egocentric.

The fourth stage is called the formal operational period (11+). During adolescence, the

developing child becomes able to comprehend highly abstract and hypothetical

concepts. When faced with a problem, children at this stage should be able to review all

possible ways of solving it and go through them theoretically in order to reach a

solution.

According to Piaget, the first three stages of development are general, but not all adults

come to the formal operational stage. The development of formal operational thought

relies in part on the process of schooling. Adults of limited educational achievement

tend to remain to think in more concrete terms and retain large traces of egocentrism

(Giddens, 1994).

The educational interest of Piaget´s work lies firstly in this procedure he used to make

educationists aware of the child’s thought processes and the conditions under which

intellectual structures are established at different ages.

There are four principles that are most often cited in Piaget´s theory regarding to

education. The first is the important of readiness. This principal follows from his

emphasis on assimilation. Experience, educational or otherwise, does not simply

happen to a child; rather it must always be assimilated to current cognitive structure. A

new experience can only be of any value if the child can make sense of it. Teaching

that is far away the child’s level is unlikely to be useful.

The second principle concerns the motivation for cognitive activity. Educational content

that is either to advanced or too simple is unlikely to be interesting. The educational

subject has to be slightly beyond the current level of the child so that it provides

experience familiar enough to assimilate however challenging enough to provoke

disequilibrium.

The third is the awareness of what level the child has reached and the information of

what it can be expected at that level and what not. Piaget´s studies often identify steps

and sequences through which particular content domains are mastered. It is therefor

possible not only to determine were the child is but also to know the natural next steps

for development.

The final principle is more functional. It concerns Piaget´s emphasis on intelligence as

an action. In his view education should be build on the child’s natural curiosity and

natural tendency to act on the world in order to understand it. Knowledge is most

meaningful when children construct it themselves rather than having it imposed upon

them (Vasa,R., Haith,M.M.,Miller,S.A.,1992).

The experience in acquiring a new knowledge through action allows two different kinds

of knowledge to develop, the physical experience and the logico-mathematical

experience. Physical experience produces knowledge of the properties of the objects

acted upon. Logico-mathematical experience result in knowledge, not of the objects,

but of the actions themselves and their results.

From physical experience, one would gain knowledge of the weight of objects; or the

fact that, other things being equal, weight increases as volume increases, and so on.

When speaking of logico-mathematical experience the point is that even the highest

forms of abstract reasoning have their origin in action (Donaldson, 1987).

The aim for education, according to Piaget, is to make individuals who are critical,

creative and inventive discoverers. So the major part of the child’s learning relies on

active experimentation and discovery. The active classroom has been associated with

the term progressive teaching, where pupils are in active role, learning predominantly

by discovery techniques, with emphasis on creative expression. Subject matter tends to

be combined, with the teacher performing as a guide to educational experiences and

encouraging cooparitive work. External rewards and punishments are seen as being

unimportant, and there is not so much concern with traditional academic standards and

testing (Spencer, 1994).

As a biologist Piaget tended to look at development more from the physical change and

the readiness for each stage to develop any further. Another perspective in the

cognitive movement was from those who saw the connection between the environment

and the child development in a constructive way, and Jerome Burner’s ideas are those

that are well known.

Jean Piaget

Jean Piaget (1896 - 1980) was employed at the Binet Institute in the 1920s, where his

job was to develop French versions of questions on English intelligence tests.

He became intrigued with the reasons children gave for their wrong answers on the

questions that required logical thinking. He believed that these incorrect answers

revealed important differences between the thinking of adults and children.

Piaget was the first psychologist to make a systematic study of cognitive development. 

His contributions include a theory of cognitive child development, detailed observational

studies of cognition in children, and a series of simple but ingenious tests to reveal

different cognitive abilities.

Before Piaget’s work, the common assumption in psychology was that children are

merely less competent thinkers than adults.  Piaget showed that young children think in

strikingly different ways compared to adults.  According to Piaget, children are born with

a very basic mental structure

(genetically inherited and evolved)

on which all subsequent learning and knowledge is based.

Piaget's Theory Differs From Others In Several Ways:

o It is concerned with children, rather than all learners.

o It focuses on development, rather than learning per se, so it does not address

learning of information or specific behaviors.

o It proposes discrete stages of development, marked by qualitative differences, rather

than a gradual increase in number and complexity of behaviors, concepts, ideas, etc.

The goal of the theory is to explain the mechanisms and processes by which the infant,

and then the child, develops into an individual who can reason and think using

hypotheses. 

To Piaget, cognitive development was a progressive reorganization of mental

processes as a result of biological maturation and environmental experience. Children

construct an understanding of the world around them, then experience discrepancies

between what they already know and what they discover in their environment.

There Are Three Basic Components To Piaget's Cognitive Theory:

1. Schemas

(building blocks of knowledge)

2. Processes that enable the transition from one stage to another (equilibrium,

assimilation and   accommodation )

3. Stages of   Development :

sensorimotor,

preoperational,

concrete operational,

formal operational

Schemas

Piaget called the schema the basic building block of intelligent behavior – a way of

organizing knowledge. Indeed, it is useful to think of schemas as “units” of knowledge,

each relating to one aspect of the world, including objects, actions and abstract (i.e.

theoretical) concepts.

When a child's existing schemas are capable of explaining what it can perceive around

it, it is said to be in a state of equilibrium, i.e. a state of cognitive (i.e. mental) balance.

Piaget emphasized the importance of schemas in cognitive development, and

described how they were developed or acquired.

A schema can be defined as a set of linked mental representations of the world, which

we use both to understand and to respond to situations. The assumption is that we

store these mental representations and apply them when needed.

For example, a person might have a schema about buying a meal in a restaurant. The

schema is a stored form of the pattern of behavior which includes looking at a menu,

ordering food, eating it and paying the bill. This is an example of a type of schema

called a 'script'.

Whenever they are in a restaurant, they retrieve this schema from memory and apply it

to the situation. The schemas Piaget described tend to be simpler than this - especially

those used by infants. He described how - as a child gets older - his or her schemas

become more numerous and elaborate.

The illustration (above) demonstrates a child developing a schema for a dog by

assimilating information about the dog. The child then sees a cat, using accommodation

compares existing knowledge of a dog to form a schema of a cat. Animation created by

Daurice Grossniklaus and Bob Rodes (03/2002).

Piaget believed that newborn babies have some innate schemas - even before they

have had much opportunity to experience the world.  These neonatal schemas are the

cognitive structures underlying innate reflexes. These reflexes are genetically

programmed into us.

For example babies have a sucking reflex, which is triggered by something touching the

baby's lips.  A baby will suck a nipple, a comforter (dummy), or a person's finger. 

Piaget therefore assumed that the baby has a 'sucking schema'.

Similarly the grasping reflex which is elicited when something touches the palm of a

baby's hand, or the rooting reflex, in which a baby will turn its head towards something

which touches its cheek, were assumed to result operations: for example shaking a

rattle would be the combination of two schemas, grasping and shaking.

Assimilation and Accommodation

Jean Piaget viewed intellectual growth as a process of adaptation (adjustment) to the

world. This happens through:

Assimilation

– Which is using an existing schema to deal with a new object or situation. 

Accommodation

– This happens when the existing schema (knowledge) does not work, and needs to

be changed to deal with a new object or situation. 

Equilibration

–This is the force, which moves development along. Piaget believed that cognitive

development did not progress at a steady rate, but rather in leaps and bounds.

Equilibrium is occurs when a child's schemas can deal with most new information

through assimilation. However, an unpleasant state of disequilibrium occurs when

new information cannot be fitted into existing schemas (assimilation).

Equilibration is the force which drives the learning process as we do not like to be

frustrated and will seek to restore balance by mastering the new challenge

(accommodation).

Once the new information is acquired the process of assimilation with the new

schema will continue until the next time we need to make an adjustment to it.

Example of Assimilation

A 2 year old child sees a man who is bald on top of his head and has long frizzy hair on

the sides. To his father’s horror, the toddler shouts “Clown, clown” (Sigler et al., 2003).

Example of Accommodation

In the “clown” incident, the boy’s father explained to his son that the man was not a

clown and that even though his hair was like a clown’s, he wasn’t wearing a funny

costume and wasn’t doing silly things to make people laugh

With this new knowledge, the boy was able to change his schema of “clown” and make

this idea fit better to a standard concept of “clown”.

Stages of Development

A child's cognitive development is about a child developing or constructing a mental

model of the world.

Imagine what it would be like if you did not have a mental model of your world.  It would

mean that you would not be able to make so much use of information from your past

experience, or to plan future actions.

Jean Piaget was interested both in how children learnt and in how they thought.

Piaget studied children from infancy to adolescence, and carried out many of his own

investigations using his three children. He used the following research methods:

Naturalistic observation: Piaget made careful, detailed observations of children.

These were mainly his own children and the children of friends. From these he wrote

diary descriptions charting their development.

Clinical interviews and observations of older children who were able to understand

questions and hold conversations.

Piaget believed that children think differently than adults and stated they go through 4

universal stages of cognitive development.  Development is therefore biologically based

and changes as the child matures.  Cognition therefore develops in all children in the

same sequence of stages.

Each child goes through the stages in the same order, and no stage can be missed out

- although some individuals may never attain the later stages. There are individual

differences in the rate at which children progress through stages.

Piaget did not claim that a particular stage was reached at a certain age - although

descriptions of the stages often include an indication of the age at which the average

child would reach each stage.

Piaget believed that these stages are universal - i.e. that the same sequence of

development occurs in children all over the world, whatever their culture.

Stage of Development Key Feature Research Study

Sensorimotor0 - 2 yrs.

Object PermanenceBlanket & Ball

Study

Preoperational2 - 7 yrs.

Egocentrism Three Mountains

Concrete Operational7 – 11 yrs.

ConservationConservation of

Number

Formal Operational11yrs +

Manipulate ideas in head, e.g. Abstract Reasoning

Pendulum Task

Educational Implications

Piaget did not explicitly relate his theory to education, although later researchers have

explained how features of Piaget's theory can be applied to teaching and learning.

Piaget has been extremely influential in developing educational policy and teaching. For

example, a review of primary education by the UK government in 1966 was based

strongly on Piaget’s theory. The result of this review led to the publication of

the Plowden report (1967).

Discovery learning – the idea that children learn best through doing and actively

exploring - was seen as central to the transformation of primary school curriculum.

 'The report's recurring themes are individual learning, flexibility in the curriculum, the

centrality of play in children's learning, the use of the environment, learning by

discovery and the importance of the evaluation of children's progress - teachers should

'not assume that only what is measurable is valuable.'

Because Piaget's theory is based upon biological maturation and stages the notion of

'readiness' important. Readiness concerns when certain information or concepts should

be taught. According to Piaget's theory children should not be taught certain concepts

until they have reached the appropriate stage cognitive development.

Within the classroom learning should be student centred a accomplished through active

discovery learning. The role of the teacher is to facilitate learning, rather than direct

tuition. Therefore teachers should encourage the following within the classroom:

 o Focus on the process of learning, rather than the end product of it.

o Using active methods that require rediscovering or reconstructing "truths".

o Using collaborative, as well as individual activities (so children can learn from each other).

o Devising situations that present useful problems, and create disequilibrium in the

child.

o Evaluate the level of the child's development, so suitable tasks can be set.

Evaluation of Piaget's TheoryStrengths

The influence of Piaget’s ideas in developmental psychology has been enormous.

He changed how people viewed the child’s world and their methods of studying

children. He was an inspiration to many who came after and took up his ideas.

Piaget's ideas have generated a huge amount of research which has increased our

understanding of cognitive development.

His ideas have been of practical use in understanding and communicating with

children, particularly in the field of education (re: Discovery Learning).Weaknesses

Are the stages real? Vygotsky   and Bruner   would rather not talk about stages at all,

preferring to see development as continuous. Others have queried the age ranges

of the stages. Some studies have shown that progress to the formal operational

stage is not guaranteed. For example, Keating (1979) reported that 40-60% of

college students fail at formal operation tasks, and Dasen (1994) states that only

one-third of adults ever reach the formal operational stage. 

Because Piaget concentrated on the universal stages of cognitive development and

biological maturation, he failed to consider the effect that the social setting and

culture may have on cognitive development (re: Vygotsky).

Piaget’s methods (observation and clinical interviews) are more open to biased

interpretation than other methods. Because Piaget conducted the observations

alone data collect are based on his own subjective interpretation of events. It would

have been more reliable if Piaget conducted the observations with another

researcher can compared results afterwards to check if they are similar.

As several studies have shown Piaget underestimated the abilities of children

because his tests were sometimes confusing or difficult to understand (e.g. Martin

Hughes, 1975).

The concept of schema is incompatible with the theories of Bruner and

Vygotsky. Behaviorism would also refute Piaget’s schema theory because is cannot

be directly observed as it is an internal process. Therefore, they would claim it

cannot be objectively measured.

Piaget carried out his studies with a handful of participants (i.e. small sample size) –

and in the early studies he generally used his own children (from Switzerland). This

sample is biased, and accordingly the results of these studies cannot be

generalized to children from different cultures.

Piaget’s background

Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was actually not a psychologist at first; he dedicated his time to mollusc research. In fact, by the time he was 21 he’d already published twenty scientific papers on them! He soon moved to Paris, and got a job interviewing mental patients. Before long, he was working for Alfred Binet, and refining Burt’s reasoning test. During his time working at Binet’s lab, he studied the way that children reasoned. After two years of working with children, Piaget finally realised what he wanted to investigate – children’s development! He noticed that children of a younger aged answered questions qualitatively different than those of an older age. This suggested to him that younger children were not less knowledgeable, but gave different answers because they thought differently.

He spent over 10 years perfecting his theory, and it is widely acknowledged as one of the most valuable developmental theories – especially of it’s time. It’s no lie that there are many new, possibly more valid theories now, but Piaget’s theory has had a lot of influence on schools, teaching and education all over the world. So, let’s begin exploring Piaget’s theory, the key concepts and the stages.

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development.

Background:Piaget’s theory is based on stages, whereby each stage represents a qualitatively different type of thinking. Children in stage one cannot think the same as children in stage 2, 3 or 4 etc. Transitions from one stage to another are generally very fast, and the stages always follow an invariant sequence. Another important characteristic of his stage theory is that they are universal; the stages will work for everyone in the world regardless of their differences (except their age, of course, which is what the stages are based on!)Piaget acknowledged that there is an interaction between a child and the environment, and this is a focal point for his theory. He believed a child cannot learn unless they are constantly interacting with their environment, making mistakes and then learning from them. He defined children as “lone scientists”; he did not identify any need for teachers or adults in cognitive development. Children have all the cognitive mechanisms to learn on their own, and the interaction with their environment allows them to do so. To put this in perspective, another theory by Lev Vygotsky suggested that the interaction is not

important at all; the child will learn when encouraged to with an adult’s assistance. I will be explaining then contrasting Vygotsky’s theory to Piaget’s in my next post – so be sure to check back for that! With the background of his theory explained, let’s look at -The Key Concepts of Piaget’s theory:Before explaining the main part of Piaget’s theory (the four stages), it’s very important to look at some of the underlying principles behind it. Rather than write a stupidly long paragraph explaining it all, I will write the key terms in bold, then explain them in bullet points – just to keep things simple!

Schema (pl. Schemata, although some say “Schemas” for the plural)Possibly one of the most important concepts put forward by Piaget, Schemata help individuals understand the world they inhabit. They are cognitive structures that represent a certain aspect of the world, and can be seen as categories which have certain pre-conceived ideas in them. For example, my schema forChristmas includes: Christmas trees, presents, giving, money, green, red, gold, winter, Santa Claus etc. Someone else may have an entirely different schema, such as Jesus, birth, Church, holiday, Christianity etc. Of course, there are schemata for all kinds of things – yourself (self schemata), other people (people schemata), events/situations (event schemata) and roles/occupations (role schemata). With regards to Piaget’s theory, a child might have a pre-conceived schema for a dog. If the household has a small West Highland White Terrier as a dog, the schema might be “small, furry, four legs, white”. When the child interacts with a new dog – perhaps a Labrador, it will change to incorporate the new information, such as “big, golden, smooth etc.” This is known as:

AssimilationSimply the process of incorporating new information into a pre-existing schema. So with the “dog” example, the child assimilated the Labrador’s information into the old dog schema. Assimilation is essentially fitting new information into schemata we already have in place. Unfortunately, this can lead to stereotyping. For example, if an old lady sees a teenager mug another person, she might assimilate “violence” or “crime” into her teenage schema. Next time she sees a teenager, her schema will be applied to them – and although they may be a kind person, she will probably show prejudice. Assimilation is normally a simple process, as new information already fits the pre-exisiting categories.

AccommodationWhen coming across a new object for the first time, a child will attempt to apply an old schema to the object. For consistency, let’s use the dog example again. The child may have “four legs, furry” in their dog schema. When coming across another similar animal, such as a cat, they might say “Look, a dog!” – that’s assimilation. However, when told that it’s actually a cat – not a dog – they will accommodate the new information into another schema. They will now form a “cat” schema; “not all four legged furry animals are dogs – some are cats too!”. They have accommodated the new information. The process just mentioned – of assimilation then accommodation is known as -

AdaptationAssimilation and accommodation are the two parts of adaptation – which is simply what it says – adapting our schemata to make an accurate (enough) model of the world we live in. It is a form of learning, but an entirely different form to the kind

you’d see in behaviourist psychology for example (such as operant/classical conditioning).

EquilibriumPiaget suggested that humans naturally strive to achieve a cognitive balance; there must be a balance between applying prior knowledge (assimilation) and changing schemata to account for new information (accommodation). Piaget suggested that when a child has a schema which doesn’t fit reality, there is tension in the mind. By balancing the use of assimilation and accommodation, this tension is reduced and we can proceed to higher levels of thought and learning (equilibration).

QUICK SUMMARY: Children have schemata (cognitive structures that contain pre-existing ideas of the world), which are constantly changing. Schemata constantly undergo adaptation, through the processes of assimilation and accommodation. When seeing new objects there is a state of tension, and a child will attempt to assimilate the information to see if it fits into prior schemata. If this fails, the information must be accommodated by either adding new schemata or modifying the existing ones to accommodate the information. By balancing the use of assimilation and accommodation, an equilibrium is created, reducing cognitive tension (equilibration).

If I am not explaining things well enough, check out the  excellent animation at this website – just scroll to the “Criticisms of Piaget’s theory” part, and the animation should be there. Kudos to the creators, it is very easy to understand and follow.

The four stages of Piaget’s theory of Cognitive Development.

The following stages form the bulk of Piaget’s theory. I’ve kept you waiting long enough – so here they are, explained to the fullest of my knowledge! I’ve actually studied this over about 3 years though – so I should be able to provide some pretty useful information! If I miss anything out, please don’t hesitate to inform me.STAGE ONE: The Sensorimotor stageOccurs from birth to approx. 2 years old.During this stage, information is received through all the senses. The child tries to make sense of the world during this stage, and as the name suggests, only senses and motor abilities are used to do so. The child utilizes innate behaviours to enhance this learning process, such as sucking, looking, grasping, crying and listening. To make this even more complex, there are 6 sub-stages of this one stage. To begin, the child uses only reflexes and innate behaviour. Towards the end of this stage, the child uses a range of complex sensorimotor skills. The sub-stages are as follows:

1. Reflexes (0-1 month) : The child uses only innate reflexes. For example, if a nipple or dummy is put into a baby’s mouth, they will reflexively suck on it. If an object is placed in their palm, the hand will automatically grab it. These reflexes have the sole function of keeping the child alive.

2. Primary Circular Actions (1-4 months) : The child now has a fixation with it’s own body with regards to behaviour(what Piaget refers to as primarybehaviour); they will perform actions repeatedly on themselves (like sucking their own hand). They also begin to refine reflexes here to form more complex versions of them.

3. Secondary Circular Reactions (4-8 months) : At around 4 months, the child begins to take an interest in their environment (their behaviour issecondary). They notice that they can actually influence events in their world, for example they can drop a teddy which bashes a ball on the floor. Although this occurs, the infant will not make conscious connections between what they do and the consequences, they merely observe that their actions have interesting effects.

4. Co-ordination of Secondary Circular Reactions (8-12 months) : At this point, the child begins to engage in goal-directed behaviour; they begin to develop cause-effect relationships. So rather than crawl over to a teddy in a cart to pick it up, they might instead pull the cart over with the teddy in to acquire it. The child effectively knows that their behaviour will have a certain consequence. At this stage, object permanence is acquired - but I will explain this after these sub-stages.

5. Tertiary Circular Reactions (12-18 months) : At this stage, children like to use creativity and flexibility with their previous behaviours, and the result of their experimentation often leads to different outcomes. So rather than grabbing a box, they might instead try to tilt or manipulate it.

6. Symbolic/Mental Representation (18-24 months) : At this stage, the child develops symbolic thought and the ability to mentally represent objects in their head. Normally, the child would need to resort to trial-and-error to achieve a desired effect. Now, however, the child can ‘plan’ to some extent and mentally construct the consequences of an action in their head. Of course, predictions are not always accurate, but it is a step up from trial-and-error.

There are two key examples of mental representation in children: object permanence and deferred imitation.Object   permanence  is when objects exist even when out of sight. In the first three sub-stages, children will not attempt to search for an object which is hidden from their view; in their mind, the object simply ceases to exist as they cannot see it. At sub-stage four, however, they show this characteristic of object permanence. If an object is hidden from them, they will attempt to find it, but will repeatedly look in the same place – even if the object is moved (the so called “A-not-B error”). However, by sub-stage 6, the child is able to mentally represent the object in their mind, leading to exploration for an object even if it is moved. They will continue to look for an object until they find it, as they understand objects exist regardless of where they are.Deferred imitation is simply the imitation of behaviour a child has seen before. As a child can mentally represent behaviour they have seen, they are able to enact it through playing and in other situations. So a child might ‘talk’ down a toy telephone or ‘steer’ a toy car around the room.

Sensorimotor quick evaluation: Bower (1982) found that children display object permanence at a much younger age than Piaget suggested. Children at 3 ½ months old show surprise (an elevated heart-rate) when a screen is removed to reveal an object has disappeared , than when the object remains. Willatts (1989) showed that children plan to move obstacles to desired toys through planning much earlier than Piaget’s theory would suggest they could.

****

STAGE TWO: The Pre-operational StageOccurs from  2-7 years of age.The mental representation of the sensorimotor stage provides a smooth transition to semiotic functioning in the pre-operational stage. This essentially means that a child can use one object to represent another (symbolically). For example, a child swinging their arms in a circular motion might represent the wheels on a train, or sticking their arms out and running might symbolise the movement of an aeroplane. This shows the relationships children can form between language, actions and objects at this stage.A major characteristic of this stage is egocentrism: perception of the world in relation to oneself only. Children struggle to perceive situations from another point of view or perspective, as shown by Piaget and Inhelder’s Three Mountains Task (1956). In this study, children were asked what can be perceived from certain positions on a 3D model. See the diagram below for a clearer idea.

Piaget and Inhelder: Three Mountains Task (1956)”]

[1The child would have been asked, “What view does Piaget have?”. In the actual study though, they were shown around 8 cards of possible viewpoints rather than the three above. As you can imagine, the children struggled to decentralise and pick the correct picture.

Another feature of this stage is conservation. Children struggle to understand the difference in quantity and measurements in different situations. For example, suppose a child is shown a short, fat beaker full of water. When that water is transferred entirely to a tall, thin beaker – we would know the level of water is identical – only the beaker has changed. However, a child in this stage will conclude there is more water in the tall beaker, just because the level of water looks higher. Children in this stage also lack the required cognition to apply reversibility to situations; they cannot imagine objects or numbers reversed to their previous form. This will be explored in the next stage (where reversibility IS present).When a child has the ability to decenter, they are said to progress to the next stage.

Pre-operational quick evaluation: McGarrigle & Donaldson (1978) found that when a “naughty teddy” was used to scatter sweets around, children were more likely to conserve the correct amount of sweets. This suggests Piaget’s methods were simply not relevant to children, but the use of a teddy helped them understand. Similarly, McGarrigle (1978) found that rephrasing Piaget’s original questions to simpler, more

child-orientated forms helped increase the amount of correct answers they provided. So is it that Piaget was correct, or just that his methodology was too complex for children’s cognition?

****STAGE THREE: The Concrete Operational StageOccurs from 7-11 years of age.This stage sees another shift in children’s cognitive thinking. It is aptly named “concrete” because children struggle to apply concepts to anything which cannot physically be manipulated or seen. Nevertheless, the child continues to improve their conservation skills, and by the age of 11 they can conserve numbers, weight and volume (acquired in that order). The child can also understand principles of  ”class inclusion”; perspective tasks become much easier, and children begin to understand that other people actually have different views to themselves. Simple maths, such as addition/subtraction become much easier. However, as this stage is concrete, Piaget suggests children will struggle to apply any prior knowledge to abstract situations. For example, when asked seriation tasks such as “John is taller than Pete. John is shorter than Simon. Who is tallest?” , concrete children often fail to provide a correct answer as the situation is too abstract. However, when dolls are used to represent Pete, Simon and John, the children are able to answer – as the situation is bought back to a concrete one with physical representations.

Concrete-operational quick evaluation: Tomlinson-Keasey (1978) found that acquisition of conservation does occur in the order Piaget suggested. Jahoda (1983), however, found that 9 year old Zimbabwean children had expert knowledge of small businesses and trade compared to British children of the same age. Zimbabwean children knew about the strategies involved in business, as it was hugely beneficial to have this knowledge from a young age in their culture. This is an important criticism for Piaget’s theory; it doesn’t appear to account for cross-cultural differences.

****STAGE FOUR: The Formal Operational Stage.Occurs from age 11 onwards.Children at this stage acquire the ability to think hypothetically and “outside the box”. Logical conclusions can be inferred from verbal information, and “concrete”, physical objects are no longer necessary. When presented with a problem, children at this stage can consider solutions to the problem in a logical manner. The child becomes increasingly “adult-like” with regards to their cognitive abilities. Scientific reasoning is apparent in this stage, and is indicated by Piaget and Inhelder’s Pendulum Task (1958). When asked to determine the effect different weights and rope length have on the speed of a swinging pendulum, formal operational children came to consistent and logical conclusions.

Formal operational quick evaluation: Martorano (1977) found a massive range in ability between 12-18 year old females in the USA. He found the ability to complete formal operational tasks successfully ranged from 15-95%. This suggests that formal operational principles may be acquired, but it takes a range of time to apply them to different situations. Danner and Day (1977) found that students trained to complete formal operational tasks showed increases in the ability around 17 years of age. This suggests that the beginning of the formal operational stage (age 11) marks a time

where children can potentially acquire formal operational thought processes, but may not specifically gain them without training. Think about why this is important! It may indicate that Piaget underestimated the role of teaching in his theory; he emphasised the concept of a “lone scientist” as mentioned above. Maybe this isn’t so? Maybe there is a need for interaction and a teacher?

****

Lev Vygotsky

The work of Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) has become the foundation of much research and theory in cognitive development over the past several decades, particularly of what has become known as Social Development Theory.

Vygotsky's theories stress the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of cognition Vygotsky, 1978), as he believed strongly that community plays a central role in the process of "making meaning."

Unlike Piaget's notion that children's' development must necessarily precede their learning, Vygotsky argued, "learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological function" (1978, p. 90).  In other words, social learning tends to precede (i.e. come before) development.

Vygotsky has developed a socio-cultural approach to cognitive development.  He developed his theories at around the same time as Jean Piaget was starting to develop his theories (1920's and 30's), but he died at the age of 38 and so his theories are incomplete - although some of his writings are still being translated from Russian.

No single principle (such as Piaget's equilibration) can account for development.  Individual development cannot be understood without reference to the social and cultural context within which it is embedded.  Higher mental processes in the individual have their origin in social processes.

Vygotsky's theory differs from that of Piaget in a number of important ways:

1: Vygotsky places more emphasis on culture affecting/shaping cognitive development - this contradicts Piaget's view of universal stages and content of

development. (Vygotsky does not refer to stages in the way that Piaget does).

2: Vygotsky places considerably more emphasis on social factors contributing to cognitive development (Piaget is criticized for underestimating this).

3: Vygotsky places more (and different) emphasis on the role of language in cognitive development (again Piaget is criticized for lack of emphasis on this).

Effects of Culture: - Tools of intellectual adaptation

Like Piaget, Vygotsky claimed that infants are born with the basic materials/abilities for

intellectual development - Piaget focuses on motor reflexes and sensory abilities.

Lev Vygotsky refers to Elementary Mental Functions –

o Attention

o Sensation

o Perception

o Memory

Eventually, through interaction within the socio-cultural environment, these are

developed into more sophisticated and effective mental processes/strategies which he

refers to as Higher Mental Functions.

For example, memory in young children this is limited by biological factors. However,

culture determines the type of memory strategy we develop.  E.g., in our culture we

learn note-taking to aid memory, but in pre-literate societies other strategies must be

developed, such as tying knots in string to remember, or carrying pebbles, or repetition

of the names of ancestors until large numbers can be repeated.

Vygotsky refers to tools of intellectual adaptation - these allow children to use the basic

mental functions more effectively/adaptively, and these are culturally determined (e.g.

memory mnemonics, mind maps).

Vygotsky therefore sees cognitive functions, even those carried out alone, as affected

by the beliefs, values and tools of intellectual adaptation of the culture in which a

person develops and therefore socio-culturally determined. The tools of intellectual

adaptation therefore vary from culture to culture - as in the memory example.

Social Influences on Cognitive Development

Like Piaget, Vygotsky believes that young children are curious and actively involved in

their own learning and the discovery and development of new understandings/schema. 

However, Vygotsky placed more emphasis on social contributions to the process of

development, whereas Piaget emphasized self-initiated discovery.

According to Vygotsky (1978), much important learning by the child occurs through

social interaction with a skillful tutor. The tutor may model behaviors and/or provide

verbal instructions for the child. Vygotsky refers to this as co-operative or collaborative

dialogue. The child seeks to understand the actions or instructions provided by the tutor

(often the parent or teacher) then internalizes the information, using it to guide or

regulate their own performance.

Shaffer (1996) gives the example of a young girl who is given her first jigsaw.  Alone,

she performs poorly in attempting to solve the puzzle. The father then sits with her and

describes or demonstrates some basic strategies, such as finding all the comer/edge

pieces and provides a couple of pieces for the child to put together herself and offers

encouragement when she does so.  As the child becomes more competent, the father

allows the child to work more independently.  According to Vygotsky, this type of social

interaction involving co-operative or collaborative dialogue promotes cognitive

development.

In order to gain an understanding of Vygotsky's theories on cognitive development, one

must understand two of the main principles of Vygotsky's work: the More

Knowledgeable Other (MKO) and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

More Knowledgeable Other

The more knowledgeable other (MKO) is somewhat self-explanatory; it refers to

someone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, with

respect to a particular task, process, or concept. 

Although the implication is that the MKO is a teacher or an older adult, this is not

necessarily the case.  Many times, a child's peers or an adult's children may be the

individuals with more knowledge or experience.  For example, who is more likely to

know more about the newest teen-age music groups, how to win at the most recent

PlayStation game, or how to correctly perform the newest dance craze - a child or their

parents?

In fact, the MKO need not be a person at all. Some companies, to support employees in

their learning process, are now using electronic performance support systems. 

Electronic tutors have also been used in educational settings to facilitate and guide

students through the learning process.  The key to MKOs is that they must have (or be

programmed with) more knowledge about the topic being learned than the learner

does.

Zone of Proximal Development

The concept of the More Knowledgeable Other is integrally related to the second

important principle of Vygotsky's work, the Zone of Proximal Development.

This is an important concept that relates to the difference between what a child can

achieve independently and what a child can achieve with guidance and encouragement

from a skilled partner.

For example, the child could not solve the jigsaw puzzle (in the example above) by itself

and would have taken a long time to do so (if at all), but was able to solve it following

interaction with the father, and has developed competence at this skill that will be

applied to future jigsaws.

Vygotsky (1978) sees the Zone of Proximal Development as the area where the most

sensitive instruction or guidance should be given - allowing the child to develop skills

they will then use on their own - developing higher mental functions.

Vygotsky also views interaction with peers as an effective way of developing skills and

strategies.  He suggests that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where less

competent children develop with help from more skillful peers - within the zone of

proximal development.

Evidence for Vygotsky and the ZPD

Freund (1990) conducted a study in which children had to decide which items of

furniture should be placed in particular houses of a dolls house.  Some children were

allowed to play with their mother in a similar situation before they attempted it alone

(zone of proximal development) whilst others were allowed to work on this by

themselves (Piaget's discovery learning). 

Freund found that those who had previously worked with their mother (ZPD) showed

greatest improvement compared with their first attempt at the task.  The conclusion

being that guided learning within the ZPD led to greater understanding/performance

than working alone (discovery learning).

Vygotsky and Language

According to Vygotsky (1962) language plays 2 critical roles in cognitive development:

1: It is the main means by which adults transmit info to children.

2: Language itself becomes a very powerful tool of intellectual adaptation.

Private speech, also called internal speech, refers to occasions when people talk aloud

to themselves. This is particular prevalent amongst children. Vygotsky was the first

psychologist to document the importance of private speech and there has been

considerable debate regarding its purpose and value in terms of cognitive and social

development.

Vygotsky sees "private speech" as a means for children to plan activities and strategies

and therefore aid their development. Language is therefore an accelerator to

thinking/understanding (Jerome Bruner also views language in this way). Vygotsky

believed that children who engaged in large amounts of private speech are more

socially competent than children who do not use it extensively.

Vygotsky believed that language develops from social interactions, for communication

purposes. Later language ability becomes internalized as thought and “inner speech”.

Thought is the result of language.

Berk (1986) provided empyreal support for the notion of private speech. He found that

most private speech exhibited by children serves to describe or guide the child's

actions.

Berk also discovered than child engaged in private speech more often when working

alone on challenging tasks and also when their teacher was not immediately available

to help them. Furthermore, Berk also found that private speech develops similarly in all

children regardless of cultural background.

Current applications of Vygotsky's work

A contemporary application of Vygotsky's theories is "reciprocal teaching", used to

improve students' ability to learn from text.  In this method, teacher and students

collaborate in learning and practicing four key skills: summarizing, questioning,

clarifying, and predicting.  The teacher's role in the process is reduced over time.

Also, Vygotsky is relevant to instructional concepts such as "scaffolding" and

"apprenticeship", in which a teacher or more advanced peer helps to structure or

arrange a task so that a novice can work on it successfully.

Vygotsky's theories also feed into current interest in collaborative learning, suggesting

that group members should have different levels of ability so more advanced peers can

help less advanced members operate within their ZPD.Critical Evaluation

Vygotksy's work has not received same level of intense succinctly that Piaget's has,

partly due to the time consuming process of translating Vygotsky's work from Russian.

Perhaps the main criticism of Vygotsky work concerns the assumption that it is relevant

to all cultures. Rogoff (1990) dismisses the idea that Vyogtsky's ideas are culturally

universal and instead states the concept of scaffolding - which is heavily dependent on

verbal instruction - may not be equally useful in all cultures of for all types of learning.

Indeed, in some instances observation and practice may be more effective ways of

learning certain skills.

Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development.

As stated above, Vygotsky believed children’s thinking is affected by their knowledge of the social community (which is learnt from either technical or psychological cultural tools). He also suggested that language is the most important tool for gaining this social knowledge; the child can be taught this from other people via language. He defined intelligence as “the capacity to learn from instruction”, which emphasises the fact there is a requirement for a more knowledgable other person or ‘teacher’. He referred to them as just that: the More Knowledgable Other (MKO). MKO’s can be parents, adults, teachers, coaches, experts/professionals – but also things you might not first expect, such as children, friends and computers.

He described something known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is a key feature of his theory. There are two levels of attainment for the ZPD:

Level 1 – the ‘present level of development’. This describes what the child is capable of doing without any help from others.

Level 2 – the ‘potential level of development’. This means what the child could potentially be capable of with help from other people or ‘teachers’.

The gap between level 1 and 2 (the present and potential development) is what Vygotsky described as this zone of proximal development. He believed that through help from other, more knowledgable people, the child can potentially gain knowledge already held by them. However, the knowledge must be appropriate for the child’s level of comprehension. Anything that is too complicated for the child to learn that isn’t in their ZPD cannot be learnt at all until there is a shift in the ZPD. When a child does attain their potential, this shift occurs and the child can continue learning more complex, higher level material.

Diagram to demonstrate the ZPD.Another important feature of this theory is scaffolding. When an adult provides support for a child, they will adjust the amount of help they give depending on their progress. For example, a child learning to walk might at first have both their hands held and pulled upwards. As they learn to support their own weight, the mother might hold both their hands loosely. Then she might just hold one hand, then eventually nothing. This progression of different levels of help is scaffolding. It draws parallels from real scaffolding for buildings; it is used as a support for construction of new material (the

skill/information to be learnt) and then removed once the building is complete (the skill/information has been learnt).Woods and Middleton (1975) studied the influence of instruction with their experiment. They provided 3-4 year olds with a puzzle which was beyond their comprehension on their own. The mother then provided different levels of assistance for the child:

L1 – General verbal instruction (“Very good! Now try that again.”) L2 – Specific verbal instruction (“Get four big blocks”) L3 – Mother indicates material (“You need this block here”) L4 – Mother provides material and prepares it for assembly L5 – Mother demonstrates the operation

After the session, the child was assessed on whether they could construct the pyramid on their own. Results showed that when children were given varied support from mothers (low levels of support when the child was doing well, and high levels when the child struggled) they were able to construct the pyramid on their own. However, when the mother consistently provided the same support, they seemed to make the child conclude the activity was beyond their comprehension and the child soon lost interest in constructing the pyramid. This shows the importance of providing the correct level of scaffolding when teaching a learner.

The Woods & Middleton (1975) pyramid puzzle.As a final point, Vygotsky looked at the role of egocentric/private speech. This is, for example, when a child will sit on their own and speak their thoughts out loud as they play. He suggested a child is regulating and planning their behaviour at this point: “Where is the block? I can’t find it. Oh well, I’ll use this block.” He called these ‘monologues’.By 7 years, these monologues become internalised and the child becomes a “verbal thinker”, which is what most adults can do with no problem. When we are faced with a problem, and we’re alone, we quite often think through the problem – but in our heads. Children before 7 will do this out loud. This verbal thinking forms the basis for higher level, more abstract thinking (planning, reasoning, memorising, evaluating).

Quick summary

Emphasised the role of a teacher in cognitive development, and the need to have support from a More Knowledgable Other, or MKO.

The zone of proximal development, or ZPD, differentiates between a learner’s current development and their potential development when being taught from a MKO.

Scaffolding provides an effective way to reach potential levels of development, but only when different levels of assistance are given when required.

Social and cultural tools are an important means of gaining intelligence. There is a close link between the acquisition of language and the development of

thinking. Internalising monologues, and therefore becoming a verbal thinker, is a stepping

stone to higher levels of thinking.

Vygotsky provided a very influential theory which provided a meaningful social context in the development of learning. The emphasis of cultural knowledge was something unseen in Piaget’s theory. In the next post, I will be evaluating both of the cognitive theories (that of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky) and then comparing and evaluating them against each other.

Jerome Bruner

The outcome of cognitive development is thinking. The intelligent mind creates from

experience "generic coding systems that permit one to go beyond the data to new and

possibly fruitful predictions" (Bruner, 1957, p. 234).

Thus, children as they grow must acquire a way of representing the "recurrent

regularities" in their environment. 

So, to Bruner, important outcomes of learning include not just the concepts, categories,

and problem-solving procedures invented previously by the culture, but also the ability

to "invent" these things for oneself.

Cognitive growth involves an interaction between basic human capabilities and

"culturally invented technologies that serve as amplifiers of these capabilities." These

culturally invented technologies include not just obvious things such as computers and

television, but also more abstract notions such as the way a culture categorizes

phenomena, and language itself. Bruner would likely agree with Vygotsky that language

serves to mediate between environmental stimuli and the individual's response. 

The aim of education should be to create autonomous learners (i.e., learning to

learn).

In his research on the cognitive development of children (1966),  Jerome Bruner

proposed three modes of representation:

Enactive representation (action-based)

Iconic representation (image-based)

Symbolic representation (language-based)

Bruner's Three Modes of Representation

Modes of representation are the way in which information or knowledge are stored and

encoded in memory.

Rather than neat age related stages (like Piaget), the modes of representation are

integrated and only loosely sequential as they "translate" into each other.

Enactive

(0 - 1 years)

This appears first.   It involves encoding action based information and storing it in our

memory. For example, in the form of movement as a muscle memory, a baby might

remember the action of shaking a rattle.

The child represents past events through motor responses, i.e. an infant will “shake a

rattle” which has just been removed or dropped, as if the movements themselves are

expected to produce the accustomed sound. And this is not just limited to children.

Many adults can perform a variety of motor tasks (typing, sewing a shirt, operating a

lawn mower) that they would find difficult to describe in iconic (picture) or symbolic

(word) form.

Iconic

(1 - 6 years)

This is where information is stored visually in the form of images (a mental picture in

the mind’s eye). For some, this is conscious; others say they don’t experience it. This

may explain why, when we are learning a new subject, it is often helpful to have

diagrams or illustrations to accompany verbal information.

Symbolic

(7 years onwards)

This develops last. This is where information is stored in the form of a code or symbol,

such as language. This is the most adaptable form of representation, for actions &

images have a fixed relation to that which they represent. Dog is a symbolic

representation of a single class.

Symbols are flexible in that they can be manipulated, ordered, classified etc., so the

user isn’t constrained by actions or images. In the symbolic stage, knowledge is stored

primarily as words, mathematical symbols, or in other symbol systems.

Bruner's constructivist theory suggests it is effective 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 even of a very young age is capable of learning any material so long as the

instruction is organized appropriately, in sharp contrast to the beliefs of Piaget and

other stage theorists.

The Importance of Language

Language is important for the increased ability to deal with abstract concepts. Bruner argues that language can code stimuli and free an individual from the constraints of dealing only with appearances, to provide a more complex yet flexible cognition.

The use of words can aid the development of the concepts they represent and can

remove the constraints of the “here & now” concept. Basically, he sees the infant as an

intelligent & active problem solver from birth, with intellectual abilities basically similar to

those of the mature adult. According to Bruner the child represents the world to himself

in three different ways.

Educational Implications

For Bruner (1961), the purpose of education is not to impart knowledge, but instead to

facilitate a child's thinking and problem solving skills which can then be transferred to a

range of situations. Specifically, education should also develop symbolic thinking in

children.

In 1960 Bruner's text, The Process of Education was published. The main premise of

Bruner's text was that students are active learners who construct their own knowledge.

Bruner (1960) opposed Piaget's notion of readiness. He argued that schools waste

time trying to match the complexity of subject material to a child's cognitive stage of

development. This means students are held back by teachers as certain topics are

deemed to difficult to understand and must be taught when the teacher believes the

child has reached the appropriate state of cognitive maturity.

Bruner (1960) adopts a different view and believes a child (of any age) is capable of

understanding complex information: 'We begin with the hypothesis that any subject can

be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of

development'. (p. 33)

Bruner (1960) explained how this was possible through the concept of the spiral

curriculum. This involved information being structured so that complex ideas can be

taught at a simplified level first, and then re-visited at more complex levels later on.

Therefore, subjects would be taught at levels of gradually increasing difficultly (hence

the spiral analogy). Ideally teaching his way should lead to children being able to solve

problems by themselves.

Bruner (1961) proposes that learners’ construct their own knowledge and do this by

organizing and categorizing information using a coding system. Bruner believe that the

most effect way to develop a coding system is to discover it rather than being told it by

the teacher. The concept of discovery learningimplies that students construct their

own knowledge for themselves (also known as a constructist approach).

The role of the teacher should not be to teach information by rote learning, but instead

to facilitate the learning process. This means that a good teacher will design lessons

that help student discover the relationship between bits of information. To do this a

teacher must give students the information they need, but without organizing for them.

The use of the spiral curriculum can aid the process of discovery learning.

Bruner and Vygotsky

Both Bruner and Vygotsky emphasise a child's environment, especially the social

environment, more than Piaget did. Both agree that adults should play an active role in

assisting the child's learning.

Bruner, like Vygotksy, emphasised the social nature of learning, citing that other people

should help a child develop skills through the process of scaffolding. The term

scaffolding first appeared in the literature when Wood, Bruner and Ross described how

tutors' interacted with pre-schooler to help them solve a block reconstruction problem

(Wood et al., 1976).

The concept of scaffolding is very similar to Vygotsky's notion of the zone of proximal

development, and it not uncommon for the terms to be used

interchangeably. Scaffolding involves helpful, structured interaction between an adult

and a child with the aim of helping the child achieve a specific goal.

[Scaffolding] refers to the steps taken to reduce the degrees of freedom in carrying out

some task so that the child can concentrate on the difficult skill she is in the process of

acquiring. (Bruner, 1978, p. 19)

Bruner and Piaget

Obviously there are similarities between Piaget and Bruner, but an important

difference is that Bruner’s modes are not related in terms of which presuppose the one

that precedes it. Whilst sometimes one mode may dominate in usage, they co-exist.

Bruner states that what determines the level of intellectual development is the extent to

which the child has been given appropriate instruction together with practice or

experience. So - the right way of presentation and the right explanation will enable a

child to grasp a concept usually only understood by an adult. His theory stresses the

role of education and the adult.

Although Bruner proposes stages of cognitive development, he doesn’t see them as

representing different separate modes of thought at different points of development (like

Piaget). Instead, he sees a gradual development of cognitive skills and techniques into

more integrated “adult” cognitive techniques.

Bruner views symbolic representation as crucial for cognitive development and since

language is our primary means of symbolizing the world, he attaches great importance

to language in determining cognitive development.

BRUNER AGREES WITH

PIAGETBRUNER DISAGREES WITH PIAGET

1. Children are PRE-ADAPTED

to learning

1. Development is a CONTINUOUS PROCESS –

not a series of stages

2. Children have a NATURAL

CURIOSITY

2. The development of LANGUAGE is a cause

not a consequence of cognitive development

3. Children’s COGNITIVE

STRUCTURES develop over

time

3. You can SPEED-UP cognitive development.

You don’t have to wait for the child to be ready

4. Children are ACTIVE

participants in the learning

process

4. The involvement of ADULTS and MORE

KNOWLEDGEABLE PEERS makes a big

difference

5. Cognitive development entails

the acquisition of SYMBOLS

5. Symbolic thought does NOT REPLACE

EARLIER MODES OF REPRESENTATION

Discovery Learning (Bruner)

Summary: Discovery Learning is a method of inquiry-based instruction, discovery learning believes that it is best for learners to discover facts and relationships for themselves.Originator: Jerome Bruner (1915-)Keywords: Inquiry-based learning, constructivism

Discovery Learning (Bruner)Discovery learning is an inquiry-based, constructivist learning theory that takes place in problem solving situations where the learner draws on his or her own past experience and existing knowledge to discover facts and relationships and new truths to be learned. Students interact with the world by exploring and manipulating objects, wrestling with questions and controversies, or performing experiments. As a result, students may be more more likely to remember concepts and knowledge discovered on their own (in contrast to a transmissionist model). Models that are based upon discovery learning model include: guided discovery, problem-based learning, simulation-based learning, case-based learning, incidental learning, among others.

Discovery Learning (Jerome Bruner – 1961)

To the foundation of constructive learning theory established by Piaget, Jerome Bruner

contributed important ideas regarding (a)  modes of representation, (b) the importance

of teaching and learning “optimal structure” (J. S. Bruner, 1966b, p. 41), (c) the spiral

curriculum, and (d) learning through acts of discovery in order to rearrange and

transform what is learned “in such a way that one is enabled to go beyond the evidence

so reassembled to additional new insights” (J. S. Bruner, 1961, p. 22).

Just as Piaget viewed development as progressing from the physical sensorimotor

experience of the child which results in learned action-schemes, to representative

schema which facilitate mental operations, Bruner also distinguished between three

modes of representation or systems of processing in both the physical (i.e., action) and

mental (i.e., imagery and language) realms. In Bruner’s (1964) view, growth

necessitates and is facilitated by manageable representation of “recurrent features” of

the “complex environments in which [we] live” (p. 1):

Two matters will concern us. The first has to do with the techniques or technologies that

aid growing human beings to represent in a manageable way the recurrent features of

the complex environments in which they live. It is fruitful, I think, to distinguish three

systems of processing information by which human beings construct models of their

world: through action, through imagery, and through language. A second concern is

with integration, the means whereby acts are organized into higher-order ensembles,

making possible the use of larger and larger units of information for the solution of

particular problems. (J. S. Bruner, 1964, p. 1)

Bruner referred to these three systems of processing as enactive, iconic, and symbolic,

and defined them as follows (J. S. Bruner, 1964):

1. Enactive representation – “By enactive representation I mean a mode of representing past events through appropriate motor response” (p. 2).

2. Iconic representation – “Iconic representation summarizes events by the selective organization of percepts and of images, by the spatial, temporal, and qualitative structures of the perceptual field and their transformed images” (p. 2).

3. Symbolic representation – “A symbolic system represents things by design features that include remoteness and arbitrariness. A word neither points directly to its referent here and now, nor does it resemble it as a picture” (p. 2).

As an example of the three modes, Bruner cited an experiment reported by Emerson in

1931 in which children were told to place a ring on a peg board, copying the position of

a ring placed on an identical board by the experimenter. Children ranging from 3 to 12

were the subjects of the experiment. Their boards were placed in a variety of

orientations relative to the experimenter’s board. The results of the experiment showed

that older children performed better than younger children, but that the younger children

could do about as well as the oldest as long as he did not have to change his body

position to place his ring. The more the younger children had to turn, the more difficult

the task. Bruner interpreted these results in terms of his three modes of representation,

calling attention to the ability of the older children to use iconic or symbolic

representation to mediate the loss of context experienced in reorienting one’s body:

The younger children could do about as well as the oldest so long as they did not have

to change their own position vis-a-vis the experimenter’s board. The more they had to

turn, the more difficult the task. They were clearly depending upon their bodily

orientation toward the experimenter’s board to guide them. When this orientation is

disturbed by having to turn, they lose the position on the board. Older children succeed

even when they must turn, either by the use of imagery that is invariant across bodily

displacements, or, later, by specifying column and row of the experimenter’s ring and

carrying the symbolized self-instruction back to their own board. It is a limited world, the

world of enactive representation. (J. S. Bruner, 1964, p. 3)

Bruner’s modes of representation provide an explanation of cognitive growth;  that it

proceeds in sequence from learned action patterns, to images that stand for events,

and finally to a symbol system:

We have said that cognitive growth consists in part in the development of systems of

representation as means for dealing with information. The growing child begins with a

strong reliance on learned action patterns to represent the world around him. In time,

there is added to this technology a means for simultanizing regularities in experience

into images that stand for events in the way that pictures do. And to this is finally added

a technology of translating experience into a symbol system that can be operated upon

by rules of transformation that greatly increase the possible range of problem solving.

(J. S. Bruner, 1964, p. 11)

Although the young child begins only with the capacity for representation through

action, then later imagery, then finally language, it is not Bruner’s position that the first

two forms of representation are not abandoned once language is available, for even “in

ordinary adult learning a certain amount of motoric skill and practice seem to be a

necessary precondition for the development of a simultaneous image to represent the

sequence of acts involved” (J. S. Bruner, 1964, p. 3).

In The Process of Education (1960) Bruner published a set of views that grew out of a

ten-day conference of thirty-five scientists, scholars, and educators, convened by the

National Academy of Sciences through its Education Committee to discuss how

education in science might be improved (pp. vii – xvi). The book is written around four

themes (introduced in pp. 11-16):

1. The role of structure in learning – “The teaching and learning of structure, rather than simply the mastery of facts and techniques, is at the center of the problem of transfer” (p. 12)

2. Readiness for learning – “Our schools may be wasting precious years by postponing the teaching of many important subjects on the ground that they are too difficult…the foundations of any subject may be taught to anybody at any age in some form” (p. 12)

3. The nature of intuition – “The shrewd guess, the fertile hypothesis, the courageous leap to a tentative conclusion—these are the most valuable coin of the thinker at work, whatever his line of work” (pp. 13-14)

4. The desire to learn and how it may be stimulated – “Ideally, interest in the material to be learned is the best stimulus to learning, rather than such external goals as grades or later competitive advantage” (p. 14)

The first three of Bruner’s themes are premised by his conviction that the intellectual

activity of the child is no different in kind than the intellectual activity of a scientist

working at the frontier of knowledge, but only in degree:

Intellectual activity anywhere is the same, whether at the frontier of knowledge or in a

third-grade classroom. What a scientist does at his desk or in his laboratory, what a

literary critic does in reading a poem, are of the same order as what anybody else does

when he is engaged in like activities—if he is to achieve understanding. The difference

is in degree, not in kind. The schoolboy learning physics is a physicist, and it is easier

for him to learn physics behaving like a physicist than doing something else. (J. S.

Bruner, 1960, p. 14)

Bruner believed that “teaching should be geared to the teaching of fundamental ideas in

whatever subject is being taught”[1] (J. S. Bruner, 1960, p. 18). He referred to this as

learning structure, the learning of which “should not only take us somewhere; it should

allow us later to go further more easily” (p. 17). Structure provides the framework for a

given subject. To learn the structure of a subject is to understand it “in a way that

permits many other things to be related to it meaningfully,” or “to learn how things are

related” (p. 7). Bruner made four general claims in support of teaching fundamental

structure as the primary and initial goal of a curriculum:

1. “Understanding fundamentals makes a subject more comprehensible” (p. 23).

2. “Unless detail is placed into a structured pattern, it is rapidly forgotten” (p. 24).

3. “An understanding of fundamental principles and ideas appears to be the main road to adequate ‘transfer of training’” (p. 25).

4. By constantly reexamining material taught in elementary and secondary schools for its fundamental character, one is able to narrow the gap between “advanced” knowledge and “elementary” knowledge (p. 26).[2]

Consistent with his basic premise that the intellectual activity of the child is no different

in kind from the intellectual activity of a scientist, only different in degree (J. S. Bruner,

1960, p. 14), Bruner believed there is no reason to wait until the child is ‘ready’ (i.e.

through cognitive maturation) before introducing certain topics which would otherwise

not be accessible to him:

We begin with the hypothesis that any subject can be taught effectively in some

intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development. It is a bold

hypothesis and an essential one in thinking about the nature of a curriculum. No

evidence exists to contradict it; considerable evidence is being amassed that supports

it. (J. S. Bruner, 1960, p. 33)

As an example he described “statistical manipulation and computation” as “only tools to

be used after intuitive understanding has been established” (J. S. Bruner, 1960, p. 46).

He also explained that intuitive understanding, as well as attitudes and approaches, is

something that can be taught in the earlier grades:

It may well be that there are certain general attitudes or approaches toward science or

literature that can be taught in the earlier grades that would have considerable

relevance for later learning. The attitude that things are connected and not isolated is a

case in point. One can indeed imagine kindergarten games designed to make children

more actively alert to how things affect or are connected with each other—a kind of

introduction to the idea of multiple determination of events in the physical and social

world.  (J. S. Bruner, 1960, p. 27)

The enabling characteristic of knowledge that lends utility to Bruner’s notion of spiral

curriculum is that it is, in fact, the basic and simple ideas that underlie all that is

complex:

Though the proposition may seem startling at first, its intent is to underscore an

essential point often overlooked in the planning of curricula. It is that the basic ideas

that lie at the heart of all science and mathematics and the basic themes that give form

to life and literature are as simple as they are powerful. (J. S. Bruner, 1960, pp. 12-13)

Having first the benefit of exposure to basic constructs and principles—exposure which

permits the establishment of an intuitive understanding, grounded in experience

commensurate with his view of the world and how he interprets ideas—the child’s

understanding can then be enlarged through a “continual deepening” that ushers in

effective utility of the knowledge and understanding previously acquired:

To be in command of these basic ideas, to use them effectively, requires a continual

deepening of one’s understanding of them that comes from learning to use them in

progressively more complex forms[[3]]. It is only when such ideas are put in formalized

terms as equations or elaborated verbal concepts that they are out of reach of the

young child, if he has not first understood them intuitively and had a chance to try them

out on his own. (J. S. Bruner, 1960, p. 13)

Of important note in the above quote is Bruner’s point regarding the accessibility of

ideas to children.  He elaborated this point by general hypothetical example, stating that

the barrier to accessibility is not a result of the complexity of the ideas per se, but rather

the formal language adults use to describe them:

Fourth-grade children can play absorbing games governed by the principles of topology

and set theory, even discovering new “moves” or theorems. They can grasp the idea of

tragedy and the basic human plights represented in myth. But they cannot put these

ideas into formal language or manipulate them as grownups can. (J. S. Bruner, 1960, p.

13)

Because of this, he recommended that “the early teaching of science, mathematics,

social studies, and literature should be designed to teach these subjects with

scrupulous intellectual honesty, but with an emphasis upon the intuitive grasp of ideas

and upon the use of these basic ideas” (J. S. Bruner, 1960, p. 13). From this departure,

the spiral curriculum then “turns back on itself at higher levels” (p. 13) and the

curriculum “as it develops [revisits] these basic ideas repeatedly, building upon them

until the student has grasped the full formal apparatus that goes with them” (p. 13).

One of the primary factors to consider in structuring the spiral curriculum is the child’s

way of “viewing the world and explaining it to himself” (J. S. Bruner, 1960, p. 33) which

changes as the child develops:

Research on the intellectual development of the child highlights the fact that at each

stage of development the child has a characteristic way of viewing the world and

explaining it to himself. The task of teaching a subject to a child at any particular age is

one of representing the structure of that subject in terms of the child’s way of viewing

things. (J. S. Bruner, 1960, p. 33)

It may be that nothing is intrinsically difficult. We just have to wait until the proper point

of view and corresponding language for presenting it are revealed. (J. S. Bruner, 1960,

p. 40)

In summary, an effective spiral curriculum (J.S. Bruner, 1960)

1. Begins with the basic and simple ideas that underlie that which is more complex (pp. 12-13).

2. Emphasizes the intuitive grasp of ideas and the use of those basic ideas in the early teaching of any subject (p. 46).

3. Revisits the basic ideas repeatedly (p. 13).

4. Enables continual deepening of understanding by facilitating the use of basic ideas in progressively more complex forms (p. 13).

Bruner is also known for his ideas on learning through discovery, which I have often

heard spoken of in educational circles as if it is the complete essence of constructive

learning theory. I have also observed that discovery learning has had considerable

influence on today’s public education,[4] particularly in math education. Bruner’s

definition of “discovery” was not restricted to “the act of finding out something that

before was unknown to mankind, but rather [included] all forms of obtaining knowledge

for oneself by the use of one’s own mind” (J. S. Bruner, 1961, p. 22). He further stated

that there are “powerful effects that come from permitting the student to put things

together for himself, to be his own discoverer” (p. 22).

Bruner described discovery learning as taking place in the hypothetical rather than the

expository mode. In the expository mode “decisions concerning the mode and pace and

style of exposition are principally determined by the teacher as expositor; the student is

listener” (J. S. Bruner, 1961, p. 23). In the hypothetical mode, on the other hand, “the

teacher and student are in a more cooperative position” (p. 23) in which the student, at

times, plays the principle role:

The student is not a bench-bound listener, but is taking a part in the formulation and at

times may play the principle role in it. He will be aware of alternatives and may even

have an “as if” attitude toward these and, as he receives information he may evaluate it

as it comes.  (J. S. Bruner, 1961, p. 23)

The technique of discovery is also a factor in its effectiveness. Bruner (1961, p. 24-25)

noted two alternatives: cumulative constructionism and episodic empiricism. Using the

latter, the child “string[s] out hypotheses non-cumulatively one after the other” (p. 25)

thereby flooding themselves with “disorganized information” (p. 25) and “soon

become[s] discouraged and confused” (p. 25).  In contrast, the child who employs

cumulative constructionism makes use of previously acquired information and uses it to

determine subsequent inquiries. This child has “a certain cunning in his strategy of

getting information” (p. 25) with the principle component of his strategy being “the

recognition that the value of information is not simply in getting it but in being able to

carry it” (p. 25),  and a “knowledge of how to organize questions in cycles, how to

summarize things to himself, and the like” (p. 25). Cumulative constructionism

constrains the nature of subsequent questions of investigation, connects previously

acquired knowledge with new knowledge, and continually organizing the incoming flow

of information:

Episodic empiricism is illustrated by information gathering that is unbound by prior

constraints, that lacks connectivity, and that is deficient in organizational persistence.

The opposite extreme is illustrated by an approach that is characterized by constraint

sensitivity, by connective maneuvers, and by organized persistence. (1961, p. 25)

Bruner hypothesized that an emphasis on discovery in learning would have the positive

result of leading students to become more effective learners:

I would urge now in the spirit of an hypothesis that emphasis upon discovery in learning

has precisely the effect upon the learner of leading him to be a constructionist, to

organize what he is encountering in a manner not only designed to discover regularity

and relatedness, but also to avoid the kind of information drift that fails to keep account

of the uses to which information might have to be put. It is, if you will, a necessary

condition for learning the variety of techniques of problem solving, of transforming

information for better use, indeed for learning how to go about the task of learning.

Practice in discovering for oneself teaches one to acquire information in a way that

makes that information more readily viable in problem solving. (1961, p. 26)

He also expressed a belief that such a practice would result in a shift from extrinsic to

intrinsic motivation and that what is learned will be more easily remembered:

To the degree that one is able to approach learning as a task of discovering something

rather than “learning about” it, to that degree will there be a tendency for the child to

carry out his learning activities with the autonomy of self-reward or, more properly by

reward that is discovery itself. (1961, p. 26)

The very attitudes and activities that characterize “figuring out” or “discovering” things

for oneself also seems to have the effect of making material more readily an accessible

in memory. (1961, p. 32)

Although Bruner had intended to present discovery as a guided process—directed

toward some specific goal and a pre-determined set of criteria regarding what is to be

discovered—as it often happens, what he said about discovery was taken far beyond its

intended bounds. By the mid-1960s discovery teaching had come to imply “providing a

rich environment for learning with an accompanying freedom for learners to set their

own learning agenda” (Driscoll, 2000, p. 233) which resulted in “a surge of popularity for

open, unstructured classrooms” (p. 233). Bruner himself did not support this

detachment of context or the unguided application of discovery:

I had, some years before, published a paper entitled “The Act of Discovery” (Harvard

Educational Review, 1961), which had been interpreted as the basis for a “school of

pedagogy” by a certain number of educators. As so frequently happens, the concept of

discovery, originally formulated to highlight the importance of self-direction and

intentionality, had become detached from its context and made into an end in itself.

Discovery was being treated by some educators as if it were valuable in and of itself, no

matter what it was a discovery of or in whose service.  (J. S. Bruner, 1971, p. xv)

Bruner (1971) also stated that he was “not quite sure” anymore that he understood

what discovery is, that you would not expect each organism to “rediscover the totality of

its culture,” and went so far as to refer to discovery as “the most inefficient technique

possible for regaining what has been gathered [by the culture as a whole] over a long

period of time” (pp. 68-69). In reference to language learning by the young child he

said,[5]

Thus, within the culture the earliest form of learning essential to the person becoming

human is not so much discovery as it is having a model. The constant provision of a

model, the constant response to the individual’s response after response, back and

forth between two people, constitute “invention” learning guided by an accessible

model. (J. S. Bruner, 1971, p. 69)

As Bruner re-evaluated his thinking about discovery, he decided that one could not

reasonably conclude that discovery is a principal means of educating children, but

continued to recognize a necessary discovery-like component in human learning:

If you want to talk about invention, perhaps the most primitive form of uniquely human

learning is the invention of certain patterns that probably come out of deep-groove

characteristics of the human nervous system, with a lot of shaping taking place on the

part of an adult. Consequently, wherever you look, you cannot really come away with a

strong general consensus that discovery is a principal means of educating the young.

Yet, the one thing that is apparent is that there seems to be a necessary component in

human learning that is like discovery, namely, the opportunity to go about exploring a

situation. (J. S. Bruner, 1971, p. 70)

He followed this up by redefining the important substrate of discovery learning which he

had tried to articulate in The Act of Discovery (1961). In his new definition he articulated

discovery teaching as a six part problem, the solution of which is aimed at “an approach

to learning that allows the child not only to learn the material that is presented in a

school setting, but to learn it in such a way that he can use the information in problem

solving” (J. S. Bruner, 1971, p. 70). The six sub-problems of his new model are (J.S.

Bruner, 1971)

1. Attitude

First is the attitude problem. How do you arrange learning in such a way that the child

recognizes that when he has information he can go beyond it, that there is

connectedness between the facts he has learned with other data and situations? He

must have the attitude that he can use his head effectively to solve a problem, that

when he has a little bit of information he can extrapolate information; and that he can

interpolate when he has unconnected material. Basically, this is an attitudinal problem

—something that will counteract inertness in that he will recognize the material that he

has learned as an occasion for going beyond it. (p. 71)

2. Compatibility

Second is the compatibility problem. How do you get the child to approach new material

that he is learning in such a fashion that he fits it into his own system of associations,

subdivisions, categories, and frames of reference, in order that he can make it his own

and thus be able to use the information in a fashion compatible with what he already

knows? (p. 71)

3. Activation

Third involves getting the child activated so that he can experience his own capacity to

solve problems and have enough success so that he can feel rewarded for the exercise

of thinking. (p. 71)

4. Practice

Fourth is giving the child practice in the skills related to the use of information and

problem solving…The great problem here is how do you give the child practice in the

utilization of these skills—because it turns out that however often you may set forth

general ideas, unless the student has an opportunity to use them he is not going to be

very effective in their use. (pp. 71-72)

5. The “self-loop” problem

Fifth is a special kind of a problem that I want to speak of as “the self-loop problem.”

The child, in learning in school settings, will frequently do kinds of things which he is not

able to describe to himself. Psychologists see this all the time in new studies—children

who are able to do many kinds of things, for example, to handle a balance mean quite

adequately by putting rings on nails on both sides of a fulcrum and getting quite

interesting balances, but are not able to say it to themselves and convert this fact into a

compact notion which they could hold in mind. (pp. 71-72)

6. Capacity for handling information flow

The sixth problem involves the nature of our capacity for handling information flow

manageably so that it can be used in problem solving. (p. 72)

In summary, as with virtually all of the other theories so far discussed, Bruner’s ideas of

discovery learning were (a) presented in a piecemeal fashion with limited context, (b)

interpreted beyond their intended scope, (c) generalized into a practitioners’ application,

and (d) were later modified and subdued by their originator in favor of a new

interpretation. However, as is also true of many of the other theories, the generalized

educational practitioner’s application of the original ideas is of considerable influence in

both the classroom and the design of instruction.

[1] Bruner described the challenges of teaching structure as: (a) “how to construct

curricula that can be taught by ordinary teachers to ordinary students and that at the

same time reflect clearly the basic or underlying principles of various fields of inquiry”

(J. S. Bruner, 1960, p. 18),  (b) how to enlist the aid of subject matter experts (“to

decide that the elementary ideas of algebra depend upon the fundamentals of the

commutative, distributive, and associative laws, one must be a mathematician in a

position to appreciate and understand the fundamentals of mathematics” (p. 19)), and

(c) how to develop “an attitude toward learning and inquiry, toward guessing and

hunches, toward the possibility of solving problems on one’s own” (p. 20) in a given

field.

[2] The concern is the disconnect that can occur between what is learned in elementary

school and what is learned in high school due, at least in part, to the changing nature of

knowledge as developments in the field are made.

[3] cf. Reigeluth’s elaboration theory (C. M. Reigeluth, 1999).

[4] In fact, they are pervasive enough that it’s probably fair to say they dominate the

general approach to teaching math in K-6 grades across the country. At least in my own

experience in traveling to various school districts to conduct training and provide

consulting, this has certainly been the case.

[5] Driscoll (2000, p. 230) cited the second half of this statement as evidence that

Bruner was reemphasizing “that discovery is not haphazard.” I do not see it this way. In

my own interpretation, Bruner is clearly stating that language learning is not facilitated

by discovery, but by interaction with a model.

Insight Learning - Wolfgang Kohler: Theory, Definition & Examples

Theory Development

In the 1920's, German psychologist Wolfgang Kohler was studying the behavior of apes. He designed some simple experiments that led to the development of one of the first cognitive theories of learning, which he called insight learning.

In his experiment, Kohler hung a piece of fruit just out of the reach of each chimp. He then provided the chimps with either two sticks or three boxes, then waited and watched. Kohler noticed that after the chimps realized they could not simply reach or jump up to retrieve the fruit, they stopped, had a seat, and thought about how they might solve the problem. Then after a few moments, the chimps stood up and proceeded to solve the problem.

In the first scenario, the problem was solved by placing the smaller stick into the longer stick to create one very long stick which could be used to knock the hanging fruit down. In the second scenario, the chimps would solve the problem by stacking the boxes on top of each other, which allowed them to climb to the top of the stack of boxes and reach the fruit.

Learning occurs in a variety of ways. Sometimes it is the result of direct observation, other times it is the result of experience through personal interactions with the environment. Kohler called this newly observed type of learning insight learning. Based on these observations, Kohler's theory of insight learning became an early argument for the involvement of cognition, or thinking, in the process of learning.

Definition

Insight learning is the abrupt realization of a problem's solution. Insight learning is not the result of trial and error, responding to an environmental stimulus, or the result of observing someone else attempt the problem. It is a completely cognitive experience, which requires the ability to visualize the problem and the solution internally, in the mind's eye so to speak, before initialing a behavioral response.

Insight learning is considered a type of learning because it results in a long-lasting change. Following the occurrence of insight, the realization of how to solve the problem can be repeated in future similar situations.

Example

Insight learning happens regularly in each of our lives and all around us. Inventions and innovations alike are oftentimes the result of insight learning. We have all experienced the sensation of insight learning at one time or another. It is sometimes called a eureka or aha moment. Whatever you call it, insight learning is often at the root of creative, out of the box, thinking.

Here is an example of a situation that while simple, illustrates the basic principles of insight learning. If you are like most people, when you were a kid you loved a good snow cone. While many think of snow cones as a summertime treat, kids don't care what season it is. So, imagine it's January, you live in Minnesota and your son wants

a snow cone. Unless you have a snow cone maker, you are probably telling your son, maybe the next time we go out to eat we will get one, OK?

Your son, disappointed, initially accepts your answer, until all of sudden he stops and says, we don't have to wait, we can just use snow from outside!. You've never done this before, and to the best of your knowledge he has never seen anyone else do this. Proudly, you say yeah, good idea! So you grab a bowl and a spoon and bring some nice fresh snow into the kitchen. Before you know it, you and your son are enjoying your own homemade snow cones.

Your son just demonstrated the ability to solve a problem without trial and error, or by seeing someone else do it. He was highly motivated (snow cones are yummy!) to solve this snow cone dilemma, so he thought about all of the possible ways he knew of to solve this problem. His clear vision of the problem and ability to problem-solve using only his cognitive abilities demonstrate the power of insight learning.

Lesson Summary

Wolfgang Kohler conducted some simple but important studies involving ape behavior that helped lead to the development of the insight learning theory. Kohler put the apes into problem-solving scenarios which required they access fruit hanging just above their heads and out of their natural reach. Kohler found that once the apes discovered they could not reach the fruit, they stopped and thought about how they might solve the problem. After a period of time they were able to use the tools at their disposal to solve the problem and reach the fruit. Kohler called this cognitive process insight learning.

Insight learning does not rely on behavioral or observational learning; it is a purely cognitive experience. Kohler's theory of insight learning helped provide early evidence to support the role of cognition in learning.

WOLFGANG KOHLER & EDWARD TOLMAN

 I. Introduction

Cognitive learning is a complex form of learning.  It involves interpreting present perceptions in the light of past information to get our way through unfamiliar problems.  It is more than just gathering information.  It involves new ways of learning, acting and solving.  It is also known as a prelude to the study of human memory and language.

Cognitive theory relates to "how we gain information from the world, how such information is represented and transformed as knowledge, how it is stored and how that knowledge is used to direct our attention and behaviour" (Solso 1979).

The Cognitive theory does not focus on stimuli-response connections as important factors in learning.

II. Discussion

            Kohler and Tolman are two people who contributed much to the study of cognitive learning.    

Wolfgang Kohler believed that animals are capable of intellectual accomplishments. He believed that animals are able to see the relationship between things and act accordingly to reach their goal. He believed that animals could have a clear and immediate understanding of a situation and come up with a solution that does not necessarily involve trial and error

            Humans, especially, have the power to see the relationship between things and come up with a solution.  An example would be the times when we try our best to come up with a solution but are trials would prove to be fruitless.  But suddenly, out of nowhere, a solution would come to us.  This is what Kohler called as insight learning.

            For Kohler, insight involves a sudden restructuring of our perceptual world into a new pattern or gestalt.  Kohler did not deny the importance of reward and punishment.

            To understand further the theory of Kohler, we would look into a study done with Sultan, a chimpanzee.  Sultan is inside a cage and outside the cage is a banana.  The banana is way beyond his reach.  Inside his cage is a short stick.  The stick is still too short for him to reach the banana.  The stick however is long enough to reach a longer stick that is outside the cage.  The longer stick would later help him draw the banana closer to him.

            Kohler said that this was not a result of trial and error but by the restructuring of various elements involved in the situation.

Five characteristics of Insight Learning:

1)      the greater the intelligence, the greater are the possibilities of achieving insight

2)      the stronger the experiences of the organism, the greater possibility it will have of achieving insight

3)      insight learning can be tested in the laboratory

4)      insight learning can be applied to new situations

5)      even if insightful learning is not the result of trial and error, trial and error is present in insight learning

Edward Tolman came up with a theory involving the study of rats.  This is the sign learning theory.  His study involved rats that were trained to run in a complicated maze.  The rats later found the shortest path to reach the food at the ned of the maze.  When the route was blocked, the rats would use the second shortest path.  Moreover, if the food was transferred, the rats showed that they had a cognitive map of the maze.  It was as if the rats came to expect a series of spatial relationships on the basis of their experience with the maze.

Sign learning is defined as `an acquired expectation that one stimulus will be followed by another in a particular context’ (Hilgard, et. al.)

Tolman pointed out that behaviorism had little appreciation for the cognitive aspect of behavior.  He said  that people do not simply respond to stimuli but rather act according to their belief and attitudes.  Behavior is defined as goal-oriented and defined by a purpose.  It is either going towards something or getting away from something.

People grow and learn.  Because of this, they are bound to develop new insights that would help them to acquire answers to problems after a period of study.  Man may also at the same time use reasoning to get to the truth.

Insight Learning (Wolfgang Kohler – 1925)

Another contribution that provides evidence of cognition in learning is the fascinating

study reported by Kohler (1951) in his book entitled, Mentality of Apes. The study was

conducted by Kohler off the coast of Africa at the anthropoid station maintained by the

Prussian Academy of Science in Tenerife during the years 1913 to 1917. The majority

of observations were made in the first six months of 1914 (p. 7). Kohler’s report on

these experiments was published in 1917 in Intelligenzenprüfungen an Anthropoiden.

The English version, The Mentality of Apes,was published in 1925.

Anthropoids were selected as the subjects of Kohler’s experiments both because of

their similarity to man in intelligence and behavior, but simultaneously—and more

importantly—because of their subordinate state of intelligence, which makes it possible

to observe in the act of learning that which is not possible when observing the human

adult:

Even assuming that the anthropoid ape behaves intelligently in the sense in which the

word is applied to man, there is yet from the very start no doubt that he remains in this

respect far behind man, becoming perplexed and making mistakes in relatively simple

situations; but it is precisely for this reason that we may, under the simplest conditions,

gain knowledge of the nature of intelligent acts. The human adult seldom performs for

the first time in his life tasks involving intelligence of so simple a nature that they can be

easily investigated; and when in more complicated tasks adult men really find a

solution, they can only with difficulty observe their own procedure. (Kohler, 1951, pp. 1-

2)

Kohler operationally defined intelligence as the utilization of roundabout methods

—“detours, roundabout ways, paths or routes, circuitous routes and indirect ways” (p.

11)—to overcome obstacles:

As experience shows, we do not speak of behaviour as being intelligent, when human

beings or animals attain their objective by a direct unquestionable route which clearly

arises naturally out of their organization. But we tend to speak of “intelligence” when,

circumstances having blocked the obvious course, the human being or animal takes a

roundabout path, so meeting the situation. (Kohler, 1951, pp. 3-4)

All of his experiments were set up in this way, the direct path to the objective—usually a

banana—being blocked, but a roundabout way being left open. Kohler was careful to

set his experiments so as to require something beyond the roundabout way a

chimpanzee might take in its normal behavior:

No one expects a chimpanzee to remain helpless before a horizontal opening in a wall,

on the other side of which his objective lies, and so it makes no impression at all on us

when he makes as horizontal a shape as he can of himself, and thus slips through. It is

only when roundabout methods are tried on the lower animals, and when you see even

chimpanzees undecided, nay, perplexed to the point of helplessness, by a seemingly

minor modification of the problem—it is only then you realize that circuitous methods

cannot in general be considered usual and matter-of-course conduct. (Kohler, 1951, p.

13)

He also set the experiments in such a way as to be able to distinguish between chance

behavior that brings the subject in contact with the objective, and genuine achievement:

As chance can bring the animals into more favourable spots, it will also occasionally

happen that a series of pure coincidences will lead them from their starting-point right

up to the objective, or at least to points from which a straight path leads to the objective.

This holds in all intelligence tests (at least in principle: for the more complex the

problem to be solved, the less likelihood is there that it will be solved wholly by chance);

and, therefore, we have not only to answer the question whether an animal in an

experiment will find the roundabout way (in the wider meaning of the word) at all, we

have to add the limiting condition, that results of chance shall be excluded. (Kohler,

1951, p. 16)

 

The genuine achievement takes place as a single continuous occurrence, a unity, as it

were, in space as well as in time; in our example as one continuous run, without a

second’s stop, right up to the objective. A successful chance solution consists of an

agglomeration of separate movements, which start, finish, start again, remain

independent of one another in direction and speed, and only in a geometrical

summation start at the starting-point, and finish at the objective. The experiments on

hens illustrate the contrast in a particularly striking way, when the animal, under

pressure of the desire to reach the objective, first flies about uncertainly (in zigzag

movements which are shown in Fig. 4a but in not nearly great enough confusion), and

then, if one of these zigzags leads to a favourable place, suddenly rushes along the

curve in one single unbroken run. (Kohler, 1951, pp. 16-17)

To separate problem solving behavior from normal or chance behavior, Kohler

designed series of experiments that required the use of implements such as strings,

sticks and boxes in order to obtain the objective. In these experiments, the banana

could not be reached by making a detour, or by the body of the animal being adapted to

the shape of its surroundings, but instead required the chimpanzee to make use of

available objects as intermediaries. For example, in one series of experiments food was

placed outside of the animal’s reach, but a string was fastened to it, the end of which

was placed within reach. In this simple case, none of the animals ever hesitated to pull

the string to draw the food to them (Kohler, 1951, p. 26). In a more complicated

variation, multiple strings were used, sometimes crossing each other, with only one of

the strings attached. In these experiments no conclusion could be drawn as to whether

or not the chimpanzee actually recognized the “right” string or not. Consistently the

animal would take a position behind the bars of the cage as close as possible to the

objective, and begin pulling in rapid succession, starting with the closest string, until the

food was obtained. In another variation, where only one string was used, but was not

attached to the food, only placed in a position closer or farther from it, it was found that

the animal would always pull the string if it visibly touched the objective. If the distance

between the objective and the end of the string was wide, the chimpanzee would

generally not pull the string, unless he was interested in the string itself, or wanted to

use it in some other way (p. 30).

In yet another series of experiments, the objective was not connected in any way with

the animals’ room but was only obtainable by means of pulling it in with a stick. Kohler’s

description of one of his subjects, Tschego, is representative of the pattern he observed

with other chimpanzees:

Tschego first tries to reach the fruit with her hand; of course, in vain. She then moves

back and lies down; then she makes another attempt, only to give it up again. This goes

on for more than half-an-hour. Finally she lies down for good, and takes no further

interest in the objective. The sticks might be non-existent as far as she is concerned,

although they can hardly escape her attention as they are in her immediate

neighbourhood. But now the younger animals, who are disporting themselves outside in

the stockade, begin to take notice, and approach the objective gradually. Suddenly

Tschego leaps to her feet, seizes a stick, and quite adroitly, pulls the bananas till they

are within reach. In this maneuver, she immediately places the stick on the farther side

of the bananas. She uses first the left arm, then the right, and frequently changes from

one to the other. She does not always hold the stick as a human being would, but

sometimes clutches it as she does her food, between the third and fourth fingers, while

the thumb is pressed against it, from the other side. (Kohler, 1951, pp. 31-32)

Another of Kohler’s examples clearly demonstrated how knowledge of the lay of the

land known beforehand might be used to plan an indirect circuit through it:[1]

One room of the monkey-house has a very high window, with wooden shutters, that

looks out on the playground. The playground is reached from the room by a door, which

leads into the corridor, a short part of this corridor, and a door opening on to the

playground. All the parts mentioned are well known to the chimpanzees, but animals in

that room can see only the interior. I take Sultan with me from another room of the

monkey-house, where he was playing with the others, lead him across the corridor into

that room, lean the door to behind us, go with him to the window, open the wooden

shutter a little, throw a banana out, so that Sultan can see it disappear through the

window, but, on account of its height, does not see it fall, and then quickly close the

shutter again (Sultan can only have seen a little of the wire-roof outside). When I turn

round Sultan is already on the way, pushes the door open, vanishes down the corridor,

and is then to be heard at the second door, and immediately after in front of the

window. I find him outside, eagerly starching underneath the window; the banana has

happened to fall into the dark crack between two boxes. Thus not to be able to see the

place where the objective is, and the greater part of the possible indirect way to it, does

not seem to hinder a solution; if the lay of the land be known beforehand, the indirect

circuit through it can be apprehended with ease. (Kohler, 1951, pp. 20-21)

Kohler also found that an increase in motivation could be used to help the tiring

chimpanzee persist and succeed:

The improvement of the objective by the addition of further items is a method which can

be employed over and over again with success when the animal is obviously quite near

to a solution, but, in the case of a lengthy experiment, there is the risk that fatigue will

intervene and spoil the result. (pp. 42-43)

Some of the most well-known experiments in the study were those involving boxes,

which the animals must use in order to obtain access to an objective fastened high

above the ground and unobtainable by any circuitous routes. In setting up these

experiments Kohler noted that “the possibility of utilizing old methods generally inhibits

the development of new ones” (p. 39) and directed that all sticks should be removed

before experiments with boxes were conducted. One such experiment is described as

follows:

The six young animals of the station colony were enclosed in a room with perfectly

smooth walls, whose roof—about two metres in height—they could not reach. A

wooden box (dimensions fifty centimetres by forty by thirty), open on one side, was

standing about in the middle of the room, the one open side vertical, and in plain sight.

The objective was nailed to the roof in a corner, about two and a half metres distant

from the box. All six apes vainly endeavored to reach the fruit by leaping up from the

ground. Sultan soon relinquished this attempt, paced restlessly up and down, suddenly

stood still in front of the box, seized it, tipped it hastily straight towards the objective, but

began to climb upon it at a (horizontal) distance of half a metre, and springing upwards

with all his force, tore down the banana. About five minutes had elapsed since the

fastening of the fruit; from the momentary pause before the box to the first bite into the

banana, only a few seconds elapsed, a perfectly continuous action after the first

hesitation. Up to that instant none of the animals had taken any notice of the box; they

were all far too intent on the objective; none of the other five took any part in carrying

the box; Sultan performed this feat single-handed in a few seconds. (pp. 39-40)

Not all of the apes employed the boxes so quickly. For example, Koko took several

weeks to learn to use the box (Kohler, 1951, pp. 39-45). However, once he figured it

out, and successfully obtained the banana several times using the box as a platform, he

would “turn towards the box and seize it as soon as anyone came in sight carrying

edibles” (p. 45).

Kohler’s (1951) experiments also included situations in which the objective was

obtained through use of a ladder or box brought in by the ape from outside the room in

which the objective had been hung (p. 51); situations in which the apes positioned and

climbed swinging doors to reach the objective (pp. 53-57); and even situations in which

the apes used other apes, their keeper, or the observer as a means to reach the

objective (p. 48). There were also experiments in which the apes could only reach the

fruit by moving a large box (pp. 59-66), or by detouring from their purpose to obtain a

stick, a piece of wire, a stone, or a rope that can be used as a tool (pp. 101- 119). In

some situations the apes had to remove stones from boxes to make them light enough

to move (pp. 119-120) or connect two short sticks together to make one stick long

enough to reach the banana (p. 125). Problems were also set in which the apes must

stack multiple boxes on top of each other (pp. 135-154), and combine this with the use

of a reaching stick in order to get the fruit.

The purpose behind all of Kohler’s experiments was to determine whether or not apes

“behave with intelligence and insight” and “to ascertain the degree of relationship

between anthropoid apes and man” (1951, p. 1). His conclusion was that chimpanzees

do, in fact, “manifest intelligent behavior of the general kind familiar in human beings,”

so long as the experimental test are carefully designed to include only those limits of

difficulty and functions within which “the chimpanzee can possiblyshow insight” and

cautioned that “in general, the experimenter should recognize that every intelligence

test is a test, not only of the creature examined, but also of the experimenter himself”

(p. 265).

[1] cf. Tolman’s notion of cognitive maps. Note also that Kohler’s experiments were

published prior to Tolman’s and that Tolman, as evident by his many references to

Kohler in Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men (1932), was well aware of Kohler’s

experiments.

Wolfgang Kohler

Work

Together with Wertheimer and Koffka, Köhler is one of the founders of Gestalt psychology. His early work was as Wertheimer's subject in his foundational experiments. When World War I interrupted their collaboration, Köhler spent his time studying problem solving in apes. Later he returned to work with Wertheimer and Koffka on the development of Gestalt theories.

Problem-solving

During his time at the Anthropoid Research Station in the Canary Islands, Köhler conducted numerous experiments on chimpanzees. He was interested in how chimpanzees were able to retrieve bananas suspended from the top of their enclosure. He observed them standing on boxes, and even stacking boxes on top of each other, to get closer to the food.

Köhler's work with chimpanzees led him to believe that animals, like humans, are capable of problem-solving. His studies revealed that apes are capable not only of trial-and-error learning that Edward Thorndike had asserted was the basis of all animal learning, but are also capable of what Köhler called "insight" learning—the "aha!" solution to problems. In this extract from, The Mentality of Apes, he described the behavior of the chimpanzee Sultan employing a stick that was too short to reach a piece of fruit as a tool to reach a longer stick, which he then used to retrieve the fruit:

Sultan tries to reach the fruit with the smaller of the two sticks. Not succeeding, he tears

at a piece of wire that projects from the netting of his cage, but that too is in vain … He

suddenly picks up the little stick once more, goes up to the bars directly opposite the

long stick, scratches it towards him with the "auxiliary," seizes it, and goes with it to the

point opposite the objective (the fruit), which he secures. (Köhler 1917)

It has been pointed out, however, that Köhler did not control well for prior experience or the possibility that the animals imitated each other's behavior. Thus, it is difficult to be sure that some trial-and-error learning had not occurred before the apparent "insight" giving the solution to the problem.

Gestalt psychology

The key argument in Gestalt psychology is that the nature of the parts and the whole are interdependent—the whole is not just the sum of its parts. For Köhler, the whole must be examined to discover what its part are, rather than trying to abstract the whole from analyzing the parts. For example, when one listens to music he hears the melody instead of separate notes. We are directly aware of the configuration as a whole structure, its properties are perceived subsequent and secondarily to the perception of the whole.

In this way Köhler, and the Gestalt movement, argued that complexities of perception and cognition cannot be understood by an "atomistic" approach—analyzing components separately and then combining them through some form of association. For Köhler, the mental processes involved in bringing meaning are of a qualitatively different nature than the individual responses to discrete stimuli. In fact, he believed that we interpret the parts based on our understanding of what the whole means.

Köhler also attempted to derive a theory of values, including aesthetic value, on the basis of the objective gestalt quality of "requiredness." This quality can be understood as the demand that one portion of a perceptual field has for another. For example, a circle missing a small segment tends to be perceived as a complete circle—the missing piece is "required" by the whole. Köhler extended this notion to evaluation, arguing in his William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1934 (The Place of Value in a World of Facts) that what is right or ought to be is but a special case of this perceptual requiredness.

Legacy

As one of the three founders of Gestalt psychology together with Max Wertheimer and Kurt Koffka, Köhler's work forever changed the way psychology and the general public has approached human perception and cognition. The Gestalt approach emerged in opposition to the approach of Wilhelm Wundt, analyzing the components of human consciousness like the elements of a chemical compound, and to the Behaviorism of Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and B. F. Skinner, providing an experimental, (scientific) way to approach the study of human perception and cognition that allowed for the greatest complexities and interdependencies.

Köhler gained fame with The Mentality of Apes, in which he argued that his subjects, like humans, were capable of insight learning, leading to a radical revision of learning theory. The ape cognition research facility in Leipzig was named after Köhler in honor of his contributions.

After Köhler retired from Swarthmore College, he was awarded an honorary doctorate in sciences, acknowledging him as a "broad humanistic scholar who is informed in history, politics, the arts, and philosophy and who uses all to further his insights into the human mind."[3] Indeed, Köhler's work was significant in opening the way to greater understanding of human nature.

Learning Theory

Psychologists have suggested a variety of theories to explain the process of learning. During the first half of the 20th century, American psychologists approached the concept of learning primarily in terms of behaviorist principles that focused on the automatic formation of associations between stimuli and responses. One form of associative learning— classical conditioning—is based on the pairing of two stimuli. Through an association with an unconditioned stimulus (such as meat offered to a dog), a conditioned stimulus (such as a bell) eventually elicits a conditioned response (salivation), even when the unconditioned stimulus is absent. Principles ofclassical conditioning include the extinction of the response if the conditioned and unconditioned stimuli cease to be paired, and the generalization of the response to stimuli that are similar but not identical to the original ones. In operant conditioning, a response is learned because it leads to a particular consequence (reinforcement), and it is strengthened each time it is reinforced. Positive reinforcement strengthens a response if it is presented afterwards, while negative reinforcement strengthens it by being withheld. Once a response has been learned, it may be sustained by partial reinforcement, which is provided only after selective responses.

In contrast to theories of classical and operant conditioning, which describe learning in terms of observable behavior, intervening variable theories introduce such elements as memory, motivation, and cognition. Edward Tolman demonstrated in the 1920s that learning can involve knowledge without observable performance. The performance of rats who negotiated the same maze on consecutive days with no reward improved drastically after the introduction of a goal box with food, leading to the conclusion that they had developed "cognitive maps" of the maze earlier, even in the absence of a reward, although this "latent learning" had not been reflected in their observable behavior. Even earlier, Wolfgang Köhler, a founder of the Gestalt school of psychology, had argued for the place of cognition in learning. Based on experiments conducted on the island of Tenerife during World War I, Köhler concluded that insight played a role in problem-solving by chimpanzees. Rather than simply stumbling on solutions through trial and error, the animals he observed seemed to demonstrate a holistic understanding of problems, such as getting hold of fruit that was placed out of reach, by arriving at solutions in a sudden moment of revelation or insight.

The drive-reduction theory of Clark L. Hull and Kenneth W. Spence, which became influential in the 1930s, introduced motivation as an intervening variable in the form of homeostasis, the tendency to maintain equilibrium by adjusting physiological responses. An imbalance creates needs, which in turn create drives. Actions can be seen as attempts to reduce these drives by meeting the associated needs. According to drive-reduction theory, the association of stimulus and response in classical and operant conditioning only results in learning if accompanied by drive reduction.

In recent decades, cognitive theories such as those of social learning theorist Albert Bandura have been influential. Bandura is particularly known for his work on observational learning, also referred to as modeling or imitation. It is common knowledge that children learn by watching their parents, other adults, and their peers. According to Bandura, the extent to which children and adults learn behaviors through

imitation is influenced not only by the observed activity itself but also by its consequences. Behavior that is rewarded is more readily imitated than behavior that is punished. Bandura coined the term "vicarious conditioning" for learning based on the observed consequences of others' actions, listing the following requirements for this type of learning: attention to the behavior; retention of what is seen; ability to reproduce the behavior; and motivation. Cognitive approaches such as Bandura's have led to an enhanced understanding of how conditioning works, while conditioning principles have helped researchers better understand certain facets of cognition.

Computers play an important role in current research on learning, both in the areas of computer-assisted learning and in the attempt to further understand the neurological processes involved in learning through the development of computer-based neural networks that can simulate various forms of learning.

Wolfgang Kohler (1887 - 1967) Insight Learning 

Biography 

Kohler was born in Estonia, and earned his Ph.D from the University of Berlin in 1909 on psycho-acoustics. From 1910 to 1913 he collaborated with Wertheimerand Koffka, working on the foundations of what would become known as "Gestalt" theory. From 1913 to 1920, which encompassed the years of World War I, he was director of a research station in Canary Islands where he conducted behavioral research with animals.. Later he served as director of the Psychology Institute, Berlin. In 1925-26 Köhler was a visiting professor at Clark University in the United States. In 1934-35 he was William James Lecturer at Harvard and in 1935 a visiting professor at the University of Chicago. He came to the United States in 1934, where he became professor of psychology at Swarthmore College. Köhler is best known for the influence of his writings in the founding of the school of Gestalt psychology. 

Theory 

Kohler was one of the original Gestalt theorists, along with Wertheimer andKoffka. All of these "fathers of Gestalt" were Germans, but ended their careers in the US. Gestalt theory emerged as a reaction to the behaviorist theories ofPavlov and Watson which focused on mechanical stimulus-response behavior. The term "Gestalt" refers to any pattern or organized whole. The key concept in Gestalt theory is that the nature of the parts is determined by the whole - parts are secondary to the whole. When we process sensory stimuli, we are aware directly of a configuration or overall pattern which is grasped as a whole. For example, when listening to music, we perceive a melody rather than individual notes, or when looking at a painting, we see the overall image rather than individual brush strokes. Köhler emphasized that one must examine the whole to discover what its natural parts are, and not proceed from smaller elements into wholes. 

Kohler proposed the view that insight follows from the characteristics of objects under consideration. His theory suggested that learning could occur by "sudden comprehension" as opposed to gradual understanding. This could occur without reinforcement, and once it occurs, no review, training, or investigation are necessary. Significantly, insight is not necessarily observable by another person. 

BEHAVIORISM VS. COGNITIVISM

Behaviorism and Cognitivism are two movements in psychology that have significant implications for viewing learning and education. Behaviorism is the study of behavior for the purpose of identifying its determinants. Behaviorism employs mechanism as a fundamental metaphor, which assumes that behavior is governed by a finite set of physical laws. Cognitivism was a reaction to Behaviorism. It is the study of mental processes through the scientific method and abstractions from behavior. Cognitivism employs mechanism and information processing as the principle metaphors for interpreting findings.

The two movements differ particularly in their views on behavior. Behaviorism, whose research subjects were mostly animals, views behavior as an irreducible consequence of environmental stimuli, where as Cognitivism, whose research subjects are often humans, sees behavior as a point from which to abstract the mental processes behind the behavior.

Cognitivism and Behaviorism are also similar in significant ways. They both use mechanism as a fundamental assumption. Cognitivism goes beyond behaviorism in that it extends the mechanical assumptions to the mind, not just behavior. But nonetheless both movements view human action, mental or otherwise, as determined by physical laws.

The two movements also hold in common a contradiction; they use subjective metaphors as the base for objective science. Behaviorism uses the stimulus and response metaphor to interpret exhibited behavior in the world and sets its inquiry according to the affordances of the metaphor. Similarly, Cognitivism uses information processing as a way to explain how humans perceive, remember, and understand the world around them. Because cognitive science bases its inquiry within the information processing metaphor, the conclusions about mental processes are only as objective to the level that metaphor is subjective.

Though the two movements are different, cognitive does not escape all of behaviorism’s criticism. Cognitive science, however, overcomes Behaviorism’s main faults, particularly that reflexes and reinforcements cannot account for all human behavior and that animal behavior is not the best predictor of human behavior.

Cognitivism also attempts to go beyond behaviorism by attempting to explain how humans reason, make decisions, why they make errors, how they remember and mis-remember, in other words, things that are very much part of the human experience but cannot be explained by behavior alone. Nevertheless, with its roots in mechanism, cognitivism is still subject to the reductionism that leaves no room for meaningful human action. Cognitive science may have made advances over a strict stimulus/response view of the world, but a metaphor of inputs and outputs to explain how humans think a feel does not reconcile within mechanics and physical laws how humans are self-

actuating. A machine, by default has no inherent meaning or sentience, but in humans, something is doing the filtering, the creating, and the development of meaning. A science that has at its core a metaphor that assumes there is no action until acted upon cannot fully explain human behavior, mental processes, or human meaning.