A_Critical_Analysis_of_Learning_Theories_and_Their_Practical_Applications

A Critical Analysis of Learning Theories and Their Practical Applications. This essay intends to look at the main learning theories: Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Humanistic; and consider their effect on teaching practice. I will consider how I have practically implemented these theories on one of my classes and the resultant effects. My class is quite a homogeneous group with a couple of exceptions. They are all male; seventy percent are between the ages of sixteen to eighteen, the remainder being over twenty. One student has an HNC in stage lighting, whilst another is undertaking an ESOL course. The rest have no particular problems or academic advantage. They are studying a level one course in electrical installation. In the 1920s Pavlov discovered the principle of classical conditioning. The essence of the theory is that when an unrelated stimulus is paired with a stimulus which produces a natural reaction; the unrelated stimulus will cause the same reaction as the natural stimulus, when paired with it (Gross 2005). This theory has many practical applications including; identification of objects during infancy and creation of phobic reactions. However, there is very little need for it during my lessons, with the possible exception of identification of new materials and objects. The most useful part of behaviourism is Operant conditioning. Classical conditioning does not change behaviour; it enables different stimuli to elicit previous behaviours. Operant conditioning allows us to change behaviour through the process of rewards. A response due to operant conditioning is “essentially voluntary” and the “likelihood of a particular operant response being emitted is a function of the past consequences of such behaviour” (Gross 2005, pg 180). Watson argued that there is no point in trying to understand the internal workings of the mind as they were not observable. What we can observe and measure is behaviour. If behaviour changes; learning must have taken place. An example of which could be; if my students are now able to wire a plug, where as beforehand they could not, they must have learned something. It is irrelevant what they understand or know, because I can see that their behaviour has changed from incompetence to competence. There are various elements that I use during my teaching which are considered to have their origins in the behaviourist tradition. For example; I will give feedback quickly and regularly, I will break a procedure into small achievable steps, I will let the class know what I expect them to learn by setting out objectives at the start of the lesson. These are effective methods for teaching the practical elements and basic theory. There is no need for the students to understand what they are doing; to achieve these targets. So is it necessary to stress the students by asking them too' As mentioned above I have two students with opposite educational backgrounds: one student is used to learning and has experience of further education. Whilst the other student has very little academic achievement, due to insufficient access to education, an institutional barrier to learning; and has to contend with the fact that English is his second language. This means that if I only teach the practical aspects of my course, there will be no problem involving all students. However, I will have no ability to extend learning taking into account the background of the higher ability student. Ignoring the fact that people think, is ignoring what makes them human. This is a major failing of behaviourist thinking. The behaviourist paradigm maintained its supremacy until the 1950s, when it was challenged by humanistic and cognitive approaches. The Cognitivists, within which I will include the Gestalt ideas, agree with the behaviourists suggesting that there is “top down” processing: a stimulus causes an effect (although not necessarily behavioural), but they also argue the case for “bottom up” processing. Bottom up processing involves cognitive processes acting on external stimuli Eysenk (2000, pg 276). An example of this can be found when looking at the goblet (pictured in the appendix). If we only respond to external stimuli, as the behaviourists argue; where do the faces come from' Another main element of cognitive theory is the idea that we create models which will “explain the existing but can also predict what might be” (Reece and Walker, 2007, pg85). This is significantly different from the generalisation that occurs with conditioned responses. Cognitive processing must take place for prediction to occur. Also existing knowledge is used to examine and process new information. This may manifest itself in staged learning, which will look very similar to behaviourist methodology, but the learning is based on initial information being used to process new information. This part of the Cognitivist theory may go some way to answer the criticism which may be laid at the Gestaltist, regarding how any initial information is learnt to facilitate insight. By using Cognitivist methodology in the class, I have taught my students to think for themselves. I have done this by structuring questions, so that the answer to one question leads to the answer to the next. This has had the effect of enabling students to link principles together and get a view of the whole and not just a jumble of individual facts. The only real objection to the Cognitivist paradigm is that you cannot measure thought. This truth largely remains. However, as investigative techniques improve this objection is gradually being overcome. The other attack on behaviourism came from the Humanists. They suggested that proponents of behaviourism were “reducing the concept of human beings” and that “Teachers need to develop qualities of worth and self-esteem.” (Reece and Walker, 2007, pg88). This would mean that in the classroom I need to make sure all the students feel comfortable and able to express their thoughts and concerns, thus reducing social barriers. Armitage et al (2007, pg81) makes the comment that certain cultures within society think that ”education is something that other people do” creating a cultural barrier to learning. Some of my students have lived in an environment where learning was not ‘the done thing’. By making it obvious to my students; that I believed that they could achieve what I had asked them to do, they have begun to take ownership of their learning to the extent that they have asked me to cover certain topics as they found them interesting and/or needed more information about the subject. The main objection to the humanistic paradigm is that this method of teaching does not lead to great exam results (Armitage et al 2007). The humanist would argue that academic results are not their main aim, but society suggests otherwise. To suggest that any one paradigm has the answer to all educational needs would be foolish. When trying to create and deliver enjoyable and effective lessons, which fulfil the learner’s needs and society’s need for results, it becomes clear that teachers need to use a combination of methods to create worthwhile lessons. References Armitage, A; Bryant, R; Dunnil, R; Flanagan, K; Hayes, D; Hudson, A; Kent, J; Lawes, S; Renwick, M. (2007) Teaching and Training in Post-Compulsory Education. London. McGraw-Hill Education. Eysenk, M.W. (3rd edition. 2000). Psychology: A student’s handbook. Hove, E.Sussex. Psychology Press Ltd. Gross, R. (5th edition. 2005). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London. Hodder Arnold. Reece, R. and Walker, S. (2003). Teaching, Training and Learning. Sunderland, Tyne and Wear. Business Educational Publishers Limited. Appendix