A Comparative Study: Behaviorism and Cognitivism - Essay Example

www.academia-research.com Sumanta Sanyal Behaviorism and Cognitivism d: A Comparative Study: Behaviorism and Cognitivism Introduction There are three basic groups under which theories of learning are placed to facilitate design of instructional strategies in the present era. These groups are behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. This study compares behaviorism and cognitivism to determine how they are placed against each other in the present learning scenario. Learning pertains to both humans and animals. Behaviorism Behaviorism has a very long history and its classical origins can be traced back to Aristotle whose treatise “Memory” investigates association between the mind and phenomenon like thunder and lightning (Brenda Mergel, Instructional Design & Learning Theory, updated 2001).. Classical Conditioning J.B. Watson defined learning as a sequence of stimulus and response actions in observable cause and effect relationships (Learning Theories). It was Watson who coined the term “behaviorism”. In effect, behaviorism advocates that environment induces behavior in both humans and animals. This is best demonstrated by Pavlov’s (1849-1936) famous experiment with a dog. The stimulus and response items of Pavlov’s experiments are: Food (unconditioned natural stimulus), Salivation (unconditioned natural response), Bell (conditioned stimulus) and Salivation on hearing the Bell (conditioned response). Thus, naturally seeing food induced stimulus previous to conditioning. Upon regular conditioning the natural unconditioned response (salivation) became conditioned to a conditioned stimulus (ringing of the bell) even without the unconditioned natural stimulus (food). This is known as classical conditioning. (Brenda Mergel, Instructional Design & Learning Theory, updated 2001). According to Edward Thorndike (1874-1949) there are three laws that govern learning in animals, including humans. All the laws are set in their revised form as Thorndike later updated them. The law of effect – When a connection between stimulus and response is positively or negatively rewarded a certain associative bond is formed in the brain. The law of exercise – When the cause and effect of stimulus and response is frequently exercised the associative bond is strengthened. Nevertheless, Thorndike later revised this law to include feedback without which the strengthening may be weak. The law of readiness – There are certain parts of the nervous system that are more ready to react than others. This influences creation and strengthening of associative bonds for variant stimulus-response pairs (Brenda Mergel, Instructional Design & Learning Theory, updated 2001). “Learning takes place when the bonds are formed into patterns of behavior (Saettler, 1990. Derived: Brenda Mergel, Instructional Design & Learning Theory, updated 2001). Operant Conditioning Skinner (1904-1990) wrote “Science and Human Behavior”, 1953, in which he explained how the principles of operant conditioning functioned in human social institutions like government, law, religion, education, etc. While classical conditioning is basic and inculcates involuntary responses operant conditioning is voluntary and used to operate on the environment. Its basic principles are as hereunder and examples are derived from educational contexts as per Brenda Mergel’s extremely cogent “Instructional Design & Learning Theory”. Positive Reinforcement or Reward: Responses that are rewarded are likely to be repeated (Good grades increase enthusiasm to study). Negative Reinforcements: Responses that allow escape from painful or undesirable situations are likely to be repeated (Good term work rewarded with eschewal of writing finals). Extinction or Non-reinforcements: Responses that are not reinforced are not likely to be repeated (Ignoring student misbehavior may induce the student not to repeat it). Punishment: Responses that generate painful or undesirable situations may be suppressed but may be repeated once the punishment is withdrawn (Lateness in students punished by extra work). Skinner maintained that after the desired response has been inducted in the subject it is not necessary to continue with the reinforcement patterns continuously. Instead, partial reinforcement schedules comprising of variable interval and ratio interval schedules can more successfully achieve success in teaching the subject, both humans and animals. In this manner the subject does not know when exactly the reinforcement is due and is always alert until the alertness becomes an inculcated habit or behavioral pattern. Cognitivism Though cognitivism also has its roots in classical Greece it was not till the 1920s that it was revived to counter behaviorism. Certain people became dissatisfied with the behaviorist approach to learning. It was habitually found that both animals and humans, especially children, used their own initiative in opposition to conditioning to suggest new responses to stimuli. At this time Edward Tolman found that rats used in an experiment with mazes seemed to have a mental map of the maze being used. When he blocked off a certain path out of the maze the rats chose another longer route to liberty even though they could not actually see that the normal route was blocked (Brenda Mergel, Instructional Design & Learning Theory, updated 2001). Experiments with animals and observation of behavior in children induced thinkers to deduce that not all learning converts to observable behavior. Behaviorism could not successfully explain certain social behaviors. Bandura and Walters, in their 1963 book “Social Learning and Personality Development”, postulated that an individual could model behavior by observing behavior of another individual (Brenda Mergel, Instructional Design & Learning Theory, updated 2001). Bandura’s original observational theory progressively left the path of behaviorism and entered into the territory of cognitivism. He began to develop a theory that based operant conditioning on the effects of imitation and tried to explain the processes by which humans knew, understood, thought and did other mental work. He deduced four groups of processes involved in observational learning. Attentional processes by which the observing learner attended to important aspects of the model’s behavior. Retentional processes by which the learner mentally represents in words or images and stores what has been observed. Production processes by which what has been learned can be performed. Motivational processes that actually make possible the performance of what has been learned – the observed behavior (Scott Adams, 2005). The three manifestations of observational learning are: the acquisition of novel responses (the modeling effect), the inhibition or disinhibition of deviant responses (the inhibitory or disinhibitory effect), and the assimilation of behaviors that are neither novel nor deviant but emulative of the model’s own behavioral patterns (the eliciting effect) (Scott Adams, 2005). The principal components of the cognitivist theory of learning are postulated below in adaptation of Brenda Mergel’s excellent work on the Internet. Schema – These are existing patterns of internal cognitive structures that are combined, extended or altered to accommodate acquisition of new knowledge. The three-stage information-processing model – Sensory Register – This receives information from the senses within less than 1 to 4 s. Only part of the information is passed on to the next stage, the short-term memory, while the rest is processed in some way. Nothing is stored here. Short term Memory – Sensory register transfers what is important or significant here. It can retain information up to 20 s or more is repetition is present. It can hold 7 +/- 2 items simultaneously though more can be held if packaged in meaningful parcels. Long term Memory – Information from the short-term memory arrives here for storage and retrieval. Linkage between relevant old and new information enables better storage. Cognitivism also advocates certain processes that enhance acquisition, retention and retrieval of information in humans and, to some extent, in animals, as recent research with great apes and dolphins as well as other animals has shown. The comparative approach Behaviorists like Thorndike barely touched upon the inner processes of the brain in formulating their theories. All their approaches were observational and extant. Behavioral perspectives positioned the learner as a passive being who is interacted upon by environmental factors, including maybe a human instructor, against whom it has no individualistic reaction, whether positive or negative. In contrast, cognitivists assert that learning cannot take place unless the information is meaningfully processed. This has a certain implication that posits the learner as a distinct individual. The individual learner’s prior experience and knowledge has a lot of influence upon the learning process, an influence that is continuous. There is provision in behaviorism for conditioning negative preconditioned responses to more amenable ones for learning the task at hand but behaviorists seem to view learning as a discrete process with stimuli-response bonds being established independent of each other. Cognitivist, on the other hand, provides for a more practical model of learning processes in which there is possibility of seemingly discrete tasks being interlinked in the individual memory. This implicates a very individualistic approach to learning. As Thomas A. Bates of George Mason University puts it – “Cognitivist principles feature the learner as a proactive participant in the learning process”. Since behaviorists advocate that the environment plays a key role in learning processes, an atavistic point of view which is somewhat true partly for humans and probably mostly for animals in certain circumstances, behaviorism cannot be totally ignored even by cognitivists who must perforce found some of their theories on it. Nevertheless behaviorism cannot satisfactorily explain some of the more rational learning processes of humans, and even in some cases animals, on that basis. Certain higher mental processes like thinking, feeling, analyzing, problem solving, evaluating, etc. cannot be wholly explained by behaviorism (Scott Adams, 2005). Conclusion One of the principle difficulties in formulating a long-standing theory of learning is that humans have still not been able to totally unravel the way in which human and animal brains work to process information. Thus, continuous development in this field preempts any prolonged adherence to any one theory. As new discoveries are being made in the field of neural processing learning theories are getting revised and adjusted to become up-to-date with the new findings (Scott Adams, 2005). Nevertheless, apparently it seems that theories like the ones cognitivists advocate in which individuals have unique ways of acquiring knowledge are more likely to be sustained into the future than ones in which the individual’s learning processes are restricted by outside influences. This is increasingly being borne out by the new findings of the brain, both human and animal, which reveals increasing intricacies in the structure and thus, in essence, increasing possibilities of individuality. Trained social interaction that can mould this individuality to a co-operative purpose like learning can much facilitate the progress of cognitive learning (Scott Adams, 2005). References Brenda Mergel, Instructional Design & Learning Theory, May, 1998. Extracted on 14th November, 2005, from: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/mergel.PDF Scott Adams, Computers and Cooperative Learning: A literature Review, 2004.Extracted on 14th November, 2005, from: http://scottadams.blogs.com/article.doc Thomas A. Bates, The Cognitivist Epistemology and its Implications for Instructional Design, 1999. Extracted on 14th November, 2005, from: http://www.kihd.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/strategies/cognitivism/cognitivism.htm Read More