Learning Theories for Teachers by Morris Bigge and Samuel Shermis - Article Example

Name: _________ Course ID: ______ Student ID: ______ Learning Theories For Teachers (Morris Bigge and Samuel Shermis) The definition of learning varies in wording and detail from source to source, by implementing this concept Bigge and Shermis have introduced such theories, which although are not new in the world of teaching but are almost forgotten in today’s teaching. By implementing such techniques teachers can control and rule over the classroom according to their requirements and expectations. A brief perusal of some of the more popular learning texts reveals these theories with respect to several definitions of learning: “a relatively permanent change in an organism’s potential for responding that results from prior experience or practice”. Learning theories can be referred to those experiential processes, which are resulting in a relatively permanent change in behavior that cannot be explained by temporary states, maturation, or innate response tendencies. Whatever be the definitions of learning theories it seem to share the common theme that learning is a relatively permanent change in the probability of exhibiting a certain behavior resulting from some prior experience, the experience can be either successful or unsuccessful. Just as the definition of learning varies, theoretical approaches to studying and explaining the learning process have varied throughout the years. Although theoretical approaches to learning can be traced back as far as Descartes, significant experimental studies began only a little more than 100 years ago. Much of the impetus for the early interest in learning was due to the paradigm shift from functionalism to behaviorism and as a result many different views of learning were generated. From the early studies of Thorndike and Pavlov in the late 19th and early 20th centuries through the 1960s, behavior theorists developed “global” theories of learning; that is, theories that attempted to explain all aspects of the learning process. Such learning processes were akin to students as well as teachers. Although a significant understanding of the learning phenomenon resulted from these general process models, more contemporary theorists investigated and explained specific aspects of the learning process. In this report, we briefly examine the traditional teacher learning theories presented by Morris Bigge and Samuel Shermis. Behaviorism Behaviorism, first clearly defined by Watson (1913), is a school of psychology that focuses on the role of experience in governing behavior. According to Watson and the behaviorist perspective, although we possess instinctive behavior and motives, the more important determinants of our behavior are learned. Traditionally, behaviors are considered to be learned through either classical conditioning (also known as Pavlovian or respondent conditioning) or instrumental or operant conditioning. Behaviorism can be implied in different aspects of learning techniques depending upon teachers’ capabilities as how they perceive the rationale accordingly. Classical Conditioning Classical conditioning is an involuntary or mechanistic type of learning that serves as an adaptive purpose. It is important that an organism learn about signals in the environment that predict biologically significant events and allow the organism to prepare for them. Instrumental Conditioning Instrumental or operant conditioning is somewhat different than classical conditioning. The primary distinction can be summarized by the terms elicited and emitted. In classical conditioning, the behavior or response of an individual is elicited by the significant events, automatically and involuntarily, whereas in instrumental or operant conditioning the behavior or response is emitted voluntarily, and the organism experiences some consequence to that behavior. For example, a hungry rat in a T-maze voluntarily leaves the start chamber and after turning left (behavior) finds food in the goal box (consequence). The rat will subsequently learn that its behavior (turning left) will result in reward (consequence). These two types of learning are not necessarily isolated in terms of governing behavior. In many learning and teaching situations, such as avoidance conditioning, both classical and instrumental conditioning are likely involved. Algo-heuristic theory (cognitivism) Lev Nakhmanovich Landa’s algo-heuristic theory, first postulated in the mid-1970s, focuses on identifying cognitive processes that learners undergo while performing learning tasks and problem-solving activities to obtain knowledge to perform new operations. As teachers are first learners than teachers, therefore to them, there are three types of knowledge: images, concepts, and propositions. Images are visualizations of a knowledge object, such as a mental image of a baseball. Concepts focus on the form of an object with its defining set of features and characteristics, such as the size, hardness, and the red stitching around the baseball. Propositions are the relationships between an object and another, such as a baseball in relation to a baseball bat or glove. Propositions would include rules and laws, such as the laws of physics that operate when a baseball is hit using a baseball bat. Knowledge can be viewed in relation not only to objects but also to operations. To perform a task or solve a problem, the learner must follow either algorithmic or heuristic processes or sets of operations. Algorithmic processes are regular operations performed under a defined, simple set of conditions. An example of an algorithmic process is throwing a baseball to another person with a baseball glove. If the process is one that the learner does not know how to do beforehand or is one that is not performed in a regular, simple manner and that involves decision-making and skill, then this is known as a heuristic process. An example of a heuristic process is a pitcher throwing a curve ball to the inside part of the home plate to the catcher in order to strike out the batter with a count of one ball and two strikes. A key aspect of the theory is that algo-heuristic principles can be taught through prescriptions (sets of specific instructions for problem solving) and demonstration of operations that follow the prescriptions. As a final note, instructing learners to discover how to perform the processes through their own initiative and practice is far better than having them learn by observing only. If we talk with respect to behaviorism, it is for sure that while philosophical debate has ensued for centuries on the nature of mind and brain and on what constitutes a state of consciousness, behaviorists have more recently focused their attention on altered states of consciousness, which are different from a normal, wakeful, and alert state. Examples of altered states are dreams, daydreams, prayer, meditation, or even trances induced by hypnosis and/or mind altering drugs. Altered states of consciousness are particularly important to behavior therapists, which seek to apply behavior modification to control and redirect a patient’s undesirable behavior. Subliminal suggestion is often used to redirect the stimulus response association from bad behavior to good behavior. Analogical learning cognitive used by Teachers Analogical learning (cognitivism) are used by good teachers since the time of Socrates (and before), analogical learning involves comparing a familiar situation with a new, unfamiliar situation so that the new situation can be better understood within a more familiar context. Analogical learning occurs when the instructor delineates a particular scenario, abstracts details from that scenario, and defines a solution to the particular problem presented in that scenario. Then the instructor applies the solution from this known problem to a new, but similar, scenario and problem. The students’ job is to apply the problem/solution set from the original scenario to the new scenario and come up with a solution for the new scenario. Analogical learning thus involves the creation of a set of feature mappings of the two scenarios. (X situation is similar to Y situation, with these similarities and differences in details, problems, and outcomes.) Analogical learning is closely allied to case-based reasoning, which is the process of applying previous experience to problem solving in which an old case is compared to a new case that has similar features and elements. Anchored cognitive instruction used by Teachers Anchored instruction (cognitivism) is based upon the technology-based learning theory of John Bransford and others at Vanderbilt University, anchored instruction is a method of linking (or anchoring) new concepts to the learner’s knowledge and experience to help make these new concepts easier to learn and remember. In the case of the Adventures of Jasper Woodbury, the anchors are the videodisc narrative episodes, which provide a simulated realistic scenario for the learner to grapple with (along with the teacher as guide) and provide solutions to problems that arise. The anchor itself is a contextual representation, a simulated real-life trigger that reminds the learner of previous experiences and concepts learned. As a result of this anchor, the new information about to be learned has a framework and is more meaningful to the student as well as easier to be recalled again at a later date. Thus, the key thing about anchored instruction is context, in which the teacher provides, often through a technology-based application (such as the Adventures of Jasper Woodbury), an anchor, which bonds the content to a true-to-life frame of reference to enhance the learning and retention of the new content. Andragogy used by Teachers Andragogy (constructivism) is previously dominated by the instructor-centric theories of pedagogy that pretty much ignored for years how adults learn best, adult learning became a major focus when Malcolm Knowles in 1968 pioneered the learning theory of andragogy, a learner-centric approach to learning, based on the following six assumptions: 1. “Need to Know.” Learners require that the instructor provide a rationale for why they need to learn the new information prior to learning it. Otherwise, they lack a motivation for learning, which is a key to the adult learning experience. 2. “Self-Concept.” Learners have a defined identity that involves being responsible for their own lives, decision, and actions. They dislike being told what to do, as is often the case in a pedagogic learning environment. 3. “Life Experience.” Learners have gained life experiences from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective and have taken on roles not as yet taken on by children, such as that of spouse, parent, worker, manager, etc. They bring this knowledge and experience to the learning experience. 4. “Readiness to Learn.” Learners are ready to learn when they make a decision that the content to be provided in the learning experience will be helpful for their real-life activities. 5. “Orientation to Learning.” Learners approach learning from a very practical perspective. They seek it to improve their lives and to be more productive. Thus, they expect learning to be task-oriented and related to their jobs versus passively obtaining subject-oriented information unrelated to their work. Thus, they will learn the content only as it applies to activities that they need to learn about to perform useful tasks. For students, providing contextual information is key to the effectiveness of the learning experience. 6. “Motivation to Learn.” Learners are, for the most part, self-motivated to learn. Internal forces are at work that makes them self-motivated, such as better lifestyle, better work environment, better job, increased self-esteem, etc. Students are highly motivated to learn in a positive adult learning environment. They become fearful when placed in a pedagogic learning environment where the teacher seeks to be an authority figure, rather than a facilitator of knowledge. Many of Knowles’s postulates for adult learning are currently being applied to traditional pedagogic learning environments with positive results. It could be argued that one of the main problems with public education at the K–12 level is the perpetuation of the pedagogic model, with its emphasis on passive, rote, nonsocial, non-contextual learning from an authoritarian type of instructor, whose primary means of student motivation is the grade. It could also be argued that at all levels, the use of andragogic elements, including anchors, case studies, role playing, simulations, self-evaluations, and peer evaluations are most helpful to the pedagogic learning process. Instructor adoption of the andragogic role of coach and facilitator can be viewed as an improvement to the learning experience for all learners at no matter what level over that of the traditional role of the teacher as authoritarian dispenser of information as lecturer, grader, and primary source of knowledge. Perceptual Learning Theory An animal (or person) trained to respond in a given way to one stimulus will tend to show the same behavior (although usually with reduced vigor) when confronted with another similar stimulus. The standard explanation for this phenomenon of generalization is, in principle, very simple. It is acknowledged that the event or object that the experimenter refers to, for convenience, as a stimulus will always be, in fact, a complex made up of many features or elements. The simplest of tones, such as might be used in the animal conditioning laboratory, has a definable intensity, duration, frequency, site of origin, and so on. All of these features may be presumed to be capable of entering into associations and thus of contributing to a conditioned response (CR) that the tone can come to elicit as a result of training. Another stimulus such as a clicker may appear to be quite different from the tone but it will hold some features in common with the latter. The degree to which generalization occurs between a pair of stimuli can be modified by prior experience of them. Some forms of prior training can enhance generalization; others can reduce it (i.e., enhance the ease with which the two stimuli are discriminated), resulting in what has sometimes been termed a perceptual learning effect. There is nothing in what has been said so far about the nature of generalization that would lead us to expect this. If the set of elements activated by a given stimulus is fixed and defined by the nature of that stimulus, and if our conditioning procedures are effective in endowing its elements with associative strength, then it might be supposed that generalization to some other stimulus would occur automatically, to a degree determined solely by the number of elements held in common. The fact that prior experience with the stimuli can influence the extent to which generalization will occur needs explanation. Certain possibilities come to mind immediately. Some are consistent with the framework just outlined pretraining procedures might have their effects because they modulate the associative strength acquired by common elements or because they establish other associations that also contribute to the strength of the observed CR. Other possibilities may require a more radical revision of the framework perhaps we are wrong to take the set of elements evoked by a stimulus as a given; perhaps the constituents of this set vary as a result of experience. The essence of the notion of stimulus differentiation, as employed by Gibson (1969) in her influential account of perceptual learning, is that, with experience, events or objects become able to activate the central representations of elements that were not activated on first presentation; also that some elements (principally those that are not unique features of the stimulus) may become less readily activated. To take student resistance as a legitimate set of actions rather than mode of failure is to explore how and why such resistance is enacted in the first place. One answer is that student resistance to issues of inequity and social justice is due to (White) preservice teachers’ lack of (self) knowledge: “Teachers are genuinely unaware of culturally contrasting worldviews, and they are likely to deny that race or ethnicity play any part in the development of the child”. This perspective is grounded in notion that all individuals develop a racial identity, and that understanding one’s position along specific developmental stages allows for greater comprehension and openness to diversity and difference. It is considered that ‘race’ proves as an obstinate feature in between understanding. Thus White teachers’ failure to acknowledge their own racial identity “becomes a barrier for understanding and connecting with the developmental needs of children color”. From this perspective, preservice teachers’ resistance to antiracist pedagogy and content can be viewed as a simple by-product of residing at a lower stage in the racial identity developmental process. The goal for teacher educators becomes the systematic elevation of students’ consciousness their particular stage along the developmental progression. Students are able to realize that they not “racist”; rather, they have not been exposed to such issues before, they have not realized the alternative stages of where they could/should be, and they have not been given an opportunity to work their way through the necessary stages. Any problem a teacher faces has multiple sources and facets. The successful resolving of problems is enhanced when understanding the historical, sociological, and philosophical influences is available to the teacher searching for solutions. Standards-based assessments, if sophisticated enough to capture the depth of social foundations thinking, would provide a means better understanding the linkage between integrated theories of teaching and learning and teaching performance. However, these findings are not likely to allay the doubts of those who dispute necessity social foundations courses for teacher preparation and development. Social foundations faculty need to begin draw those connections in compelling ways for their students, and they need to begin document the effect on students’ conceptualizations of teaching and learning. Researchers need to explore with practicing teachers the degree to which social understandings operate significantly in their daily work, and these stories need to be told. For many foundations educators, it has long been evident that a foundations setting at the teacher education table cannot be assumed. Standards-based assessment can certainly help address this concern. But there are no guarantees. We currently have no evidence that assessors hold candidates accountable for social foundations understandings. If assessments actually held candidates accountable for the understandings that are implied by standards and the principles, there would be significant implications for social foundations knowledge. However, as already noted, given the level of sophistication in design and in assessor expertise needed to assess such knowledge, it is unlikely that such assessment will become a priority anytime soon. It is arguable, as well, that concerns about teacher “shortages, “ despite the lack of evidence supporting these claims, will continue to undermine efforts toward teacher quality by contributing to a sense of urgency around hiring, rather than careful assessment of a teacher’s suitability and capacity for the profession. An ideal of substantive autonomy further propels a unified, undivided, coherent self, rationally choosing choice above all else. In a class that teaches theories of social reproduction, histories segregated schooling, and educational legacies of meritocracy, the vision substantive autonomy as an ideal simply defies the powerful evidence that human choice and agency are always limited, often repressed and constrained by one’s position, status, skin color, and other identifications. As teacher educators dedicated to social and ecological justice (ecojustice), we are convinced that theories, the attitudes and ways of thinking that students’ carry into the classroom is as important any particular techniques they might acquire. When we argue for the importance of theory and, in so doing, for the centrality social foundations within teacher education we want this understanding of theory to take hold for our students, so that they recognize their daily lives are filled with theory. Naming the theories we utilize in our daily lives can be an awakening experience for students who may come to college having been taught that their own lives have little do with school knowledge. But it is not sufficient simply to be aware of theory. We want students be able to change their assumptions and actions in the world and especially in the classroom. What good will it do them, or their future students, if they can name theory but are unable to rewrite the scripts through which they live and act in the world? Active use of theory involves a potential alteration of one’s attitude and being in the world. Thus, they need to be able think about and analyze their actions within a framework that offers ethical guidelines as well analytical ones. Students need to question the scripts in which they have lived, so as to recognize subjectivity of such scripts and the potential to change them. References Morris Bigge and Samuel Shermis, Learning Theories for Teachers, 6th Edition Read More