Neuronal Intervention and Learning Theories
There are as many theories explaining the process of learning as there are theorists. There are those theorists who view learning as a change in the learner’s behavior, others conceptualize it as a restructuring of the internal cognitive processes of the individual while a third school of thought views the process as a desire on the part of the learner to self-fulfillment.
Out of these theories, two contradictory views are notable. There are theorists, for example David Hebb, who believe that learning theories have to be couched on neuroscience (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008). Another school of thought, led by Skinner and his students, is of the view that learning theories can be conceptualized without the inclusion of neuronal or physiological concepts (Altmann & Koch, 2006). Rather, learning theories should concentrate on the behavioral changes observable on the individual.
It is possible to formulate learning theories without including neuronal and physiological concepts in our thinking. This is because, as Skinner posits, learning is more of a function of change in observable behavior than a change in covert behavior of the individual (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008). Behavior is itself a product of stimuli external to the individual. As such, the changes that occur in the learner’s behavior are a product of the learner's response to stimuli from the environment. This response to stimuli produces a consequence that can be viewed as learning. For example, in the learning process, posing questions to the learner-and the process of the learner answering the questions-is considered to be very important. The learner reacts by responding to the questions. When the responses are correct, this acts as reinforcement for the behavior, and the learner is likely to repeat that behavior in the future. According to Skinner, the process of stimulus and response is very important in the learning process (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008).
David Hebb, on his part, ignores these observable changes in the behavior of the person and concentrates on the unobservable or covert changes in the person’s cognitive structure. He however acknowledges the arguments posed by Skinner, but argues that the process that takes place within the brain in the duration between stimulus and response is of more importance (Altmann & Koch, 2006). By stating this, Hebb endorses, either directly or indirectly, the idea that it is possible to formulate theories without any regard to the neuronal processes. This is because the stimulus response is central to the process, and even Hebb recognizes this.
Skinner’s ideas have been criticized as been merely descriptive in nature, lacking the most important attribute of explaining the observations made (Altmann & Koch, 2006). Despite this criticism, this idea of learning process is more concrete than the others.There are as many theories explaining the process of learning as there are theorists. There are those theorists who view learning as a change in the learner’s behavior, others conceptualize it as a restructuring of the internal cognitive processes of the individual while a third school of thought views the process as a desire on the part of the learner to self-fulfillment.
Out of these theories, two contradictory views are notable. There are theorists, for example David Hebb, who believe that learning theories have to be couched on neuroscience (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008). Another school of thought, led by Skinner and his students, is of the view that learning theories can be conceptualized without the inclusion of neuronal or physiological concepts (Altmann & Koch, 2006). Rather, learning theories should concentrate on the behavioral changes observable on the individual.
It is possible to formulate learning theories without including neuronal and physiological concepts in our thinking. This is because, as Skinner posits, learning is more of a function of change in observable behavior than a change in covert behavior of the individual (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008). Behavior is itself a product of stimuli external to the individual. As such, the changes that occur in the learner’s behavior are a product of the learner's response to stimuli from the environment. This response to stimuli produces a consequence that can be viewed as learning. For example, in the learning process, posing questions to the learner-and the process of the learner answering the questions-is considered to be very important. The learner reacts by responding to the questions. When the responses are correct, this acts as reinforcement for the behavior, and the learner is likely to repeat that behavior in the future. According to Skinner, the process of stimulus and response is very important in the learning process (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008).
David Hebb, on his part, ignores these observable changes in the behavior of the person and concentrates on the unobservable or covert changes in the person’s cognitive structure. He however acknowledges the arguments posed by Skinner, but argues that the process that takes place within the brain in the duration between stimulus and response is of more importance (Altmann & Koch, 2006). By stating this, Hebb endorses, either directly or indirectly, the idea that it is possible to formulate theories without any regard to the neuronal processes. This is because the stimulus response is central to the process, and even Hebb recognizes this.
Skinner’s ideas have been criticized as been merely descriptive in nature, lacking the most important attribute of explaining the observations made (Altmann & Koch, 2006). Despite this criticism, this idea of learning process is more concrete than the others.
Out of these theories, two contradictory views are notable. There are theorists, for example David Hebb, who believe that learning theories have to be couched on neuroscience (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008). Another school of thought, led by Skinner and his students, is of the view that learning theories can be conceptualized without the inclusion of neuronal or physiological concepts (Altmann & Koch, 2006). Rather, learning theories should concentrate on the behavioral changes observable on the individual.
It is possible to formulate learning theories without including neuronal and physiological concepts in our thinking. This is because, as Skinner posits, learning is more of a function of change in observable behavior than a change in covert behavior of the individual (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008). Behavior is itself a product of stimuli external to the individual. As such, the changes that occur in the learner’s behavior are a product of the learner's response to stimuli from the environment. This response to stimuli produces a consequence that can be viewed as learning. For example, in the learning process, posing questions to the learner-and the process of the learner answering the questions-is considered to be very important. The learner reacts by responding to the questions. When the responses are correct, this acts as reinforcement for the behavior, and the learner is likely to repeat that behavior in the future. According to Skinner, the process of stimulus and response is very important in the learning process (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008).
David Hebb, on his part, ignores these observable changes in the behavior of the person and concentrates on the unobservable or covert changes in the person’s cognitive structure. He however acknowledges the arguments posed by Skinner, but argues that the process that takes place within the brain in the duration between stimulus and response is of more importance (Altmann & Koch, 2006). By stating this, Hebb endorses, either directly or indirectly, the idea that it is possible to formulate theories without any regard to the neuronal processes. This is because the stimulus response is central to the process, and even Hebb recognizes this.
Skinner’s ideas have been criticized as been merely descriptive in nature, lacking the most important attribute of explaining the observations made (Altmann & Koch, 2006). Despite this criticism, this idea of learning process is more concrete than the others.There are as many theories explaining the process of learning as there are theorists. There are those theorists who view learning as a change in the learner’s behavior, others conceptualize it as a restructuring of the internal cognitive processes of the individual while a third school of thought views the process as a desire on the part of the learner to self-fulfillment.
Out of these theories, two contradictory views are notable. There are theorists, for example David Hebb, who believe that learning theories have to be couched on neuroscience (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008). Another school of thought, led by Skinner and his students, is of the view that learning theories can be conceptualized without the inclusion of neuronal or physiological concepts (Altmann & Koch, 2006). Rather, learning theories should concentrate on the behavioral changes observable on the individual.
It is possible to formulate learning theories without including neuronal and physiological concepts in our thinking. This is because, as Skinner posits, learning is more of a function of change in observable behavior than a change in covert behavior of the individual (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008). Behavior is itself a product of stimuli external to the individual. As such, the changes that occur in the learner’s behavior are a product of the learner's response to stimuli from the environment. This response to stimuli produces a consequence that can be viewed as learning. For example, in the learning process, posing questions to the learner-and the process of the learner answering the questions-is considered to be very important. The learner reacts by responding to the questions. When the responses are correct, this acts as reinforcement for the behavior, and the learner is likely to repeat that behavior in the future. According to Skinner, the process of stimulus and response is very important in the learning process (Hergenhahn & Olson, 2008).
David Hebb, on his part, ignores these observable changes in the behavior of the person and concentrates on the unobservable or covert changes in the person’s cognitive structure. He however acknowledges the arguments posed by Skinner, but argues that the process that takes place within the brain in the duration between stimulus and response is of more importance (Altmann & Koch, 2006). By stating this, Hebb endorses, either directly or indirectly, the idea that it is possible to formulate theories without any regard to the neuronal processes. This is because the stimulus response is central to the process, and even Hebb recognizes this.
Skinner’s ideas have been criticized as been merely descriptive in nature, lacking the most important attribute of explaining the observations made (Altmann & Koch, 2006). Despite this criticism, this idea of learning process is more concrete than the others.
Categories:
Neuronal Intervention and Learning Theories
0 comments:
Post a Comment