The shape of minds to come

This is number 17 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my most recent post I featured Hull's Drive Reduction theory and its applications to education. In this post, we will explore the work of Bärbel Inhelder on deductive reasoning. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

Swiss psychologist Bärbel Inhelder is perhaps the best known of Piaget's collaborators. She made some important contributions to his stages of cognitive development theory (which will be featured in greater depth in some upcoming articles on this blog). Inhelder was particularly interested in how children's minds develop to the point where they can reason for themselves. Her work with Jean Piaget led to the proposal that there is a 'formal operations' stage marking the transition from childhood to adolescence. They argued that when children reach the age of about 11 years old, they are capable of using deductive reasoning to make sense of the world around them.

How it can be applied in education

Inhelder's work with Piaget was instrumental in shaping the way schools are organised today and is a key influence on the design of curricula. The transition between primary (elementary) school and secondary (high) school is marked when children reach the age of 11 (or 12 in some countries such as Scotland).

It could be argued that these decisions were made because of Inhelder and Piaget's cognitive stages theory. The Formal Operations stage is where children are capable of higher order thinking such as abstract reasoning - imagining the outcome of their actions, and it is also the stage of development where they can develop their inferential reasoning skills. A good example of inferential reasoning in education is where the teacher presents students with puzzles or challenges as a part of their learning: 'If George is older than David, and David is older than Michael, who is the oldest?' Inferential reasoning skills can be developed over time as children learn about new concepts, how they compare, and how to make decisions. The ability to deduce from the general to the specific is the basis of all good science, and runs consistently through a number of disciplines such as mathematics and statistical analysis.

Deductive reasoning methods can therefore also be applied to good effect in just about any lesson on any subject. Students could be encouraged to ask 'what if?' hypothetical questions during physics or chemistry experiments, and then test out their predictions; or to predict the trajectory of a cricket ball in sport; or be asked to judge whether a statement is true or false, on the basis of evidence; or to detect grammatical errors according to 'the rules' of a language. Indeed, the entire secondary curriculum in schools is based on the premise that children between 11-16 years old have developed their higher level cognitive capabilities sufficiently enough to be able to think creatively, use abstract reasoning and perform numerical calculations.

It should be noted that many of the theories proposed by Inhelder and Piaget are contentious and have been challenged not only on the basis of their small sample size (he mainly used his own children as subjects in his experiments) and methods, but also due to alternative findings and interpretations carried out by a number of psychologists. Are there actually stages of cognitive development, and are they as Inhelder and Piaget claimed? And of course, the most difficult problem of them all - do all children develop through these stages at the same time and in the same way? For more details on these counter arguments see the work of Margaret Donaldson.

References

Donaldson, M. (1987) Children's Minds. London: Fontana Press.
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. (1959) The Growth of Logical Thinking From Childhood to Adolescence. Basic Books.

Previous posts in this series:

Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
Argyris Double Loop Learning
Bandura Social Learning Theory
Bruner Scaffolding Theory
Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
Dewey Experiential Learning
Engeström Activity Theory
Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
Festinger Social Comparison Theory
Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
Gibson Affordances Theory
Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy
Hull Drive Reduction Theory

Photo by Steve Wheeler



The shape of minds to come by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Drive through learning

This is number 16 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my most recent post I featured the theory of Heutagogy by Stewart Hase and Chris Kenyon and its applications to education. In this post, we will explore Clark Hull's drive reduction theory of motivation. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

American psychologist Clark Hull is credited with developing the first theory of human motivation. Known as drive reduction theory, his approach sits in the behavioural school of thinking. Drive is the tension caused by the desire to satisfy basic biological needs such as thirst, hunger and the need for warmth. Hull believed that as we seek to maintain an internal balance (homeostasis) where these needs are fulfilled, so we then repeat these behaviours (reinforcement) to maintain pleasant feelings, whilst avoiding the tension or unpleasant feelings created by the imbalance. In a nutshell, people are motivated by the need to reduce unpleasant feelings by reinstating internal biological balances.

How it can apply in education

Clearly, although this was considered a useful theory many years ago, our thinking has moved on, and many behaviouristic theories such as drive theory have been largely rejected. Hull's theory fails to explain complex human behaviours with simple stimulus-response chains that characterise behaviourism. There is no room in Hull's theory for example, to explain how humans can continue to explore their environment, solve problems and generate creative work even though they may be cold, hungry or thirsty.

And yet, there are areas of learning within which Hull's theory could possibly apply. Elements of his theory are present in Maslow's more humanistic and learner-centred Hierarchy of Human Needs model. Although this is in itself a flawed and contentious model, Maslow's hierarchy has been used to explain more compex motivational processes. Furthermore, although drive reduction describes simple biological needs such as hunger and thirst, more complex human phenomena such as uncertainty and doubt could be considered drives which need to be reduced. Students who experience a dissonance that brings uncertainty may become anxious or stressed. If this happens students may seek to reduce this drive by putting more effort into mastering their subject.

Or they may simply run away.

Reference

Hull, C. L. (1935). The Conflicting Psychologies of Learning: A Way Out. Psychological Review, 42, 491-516.

Previous posts in this series:

Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
Argyris Double Loop Learning
Bandura Social Learning Theory
Bruner Scaffolding Theory
Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
Dewey Experiential Learning
Engeström Activity Theory
Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
Festinger Social Comparison Theory
Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
Gibson Affordances Theory
Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis
Hase and Kenyon Heutagogy

Photo from Roberto Fermino blog



Drive through learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Help yourself

This is number 15 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and theorists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my most recent post I featured Richard Gregory's perceptual hypothesis and its applications to education. In this post, we take a look at an emerging theory of learning proposed by Stewart Hase and Chris Kenyon, known as Heutagogy. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

Heutagogy is a theory that focuses on meta-learning (learning to learn), double loop learning (reflection on learning), and non-linear forms of learning, but ultimately it is about the study of self-determined learning. I would like to argue that technology plays a key role in this process. There is a sense that personal technologies encourage learners to be self-determined in their approach to education. Stewart Hase and Chris Kenyon’s (2007) conceptualisation of self determined learning places the emphasis on non-linear, self-directed and self-regulated forms of learning, and embraces both formal and informal education contexts. The central tenet of heutagogy is that people inherently know how to learn, and will pursue that learning if they are interested enough.

The role of formal education is to enable them to confidently develop these skills, encouraging them to critically evaluate and interpret their own personal reality according to their own personal skills and competencies. The ethos of heutagogy extends to learner choice, where students can create their own programmes of study, a feature often seen in the loosely aggregated and unstructured aspects of some Massive Open Online Courses. In many ways, heutagogy is aligned to other digital age theories, in that it places an importance on ‘learning to learn’, and the sharing rather than hoarding of that knowledge. It is not difficult to see that such sharing of knowledge can be easily achieved through social media and the use of personal digital technologies.

How it can be applied to education

Clearly, heutagogy is a specific kind of learning theory, in the sense that it points out the distinction between self-determined learning and learning that is more likely to be driven by formal pedagogy. In essence, it highlights the differences between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and the potentially different learning outcomes each might yield. Heutagogy can of course be viewed as an explanation of learning that occurs both inside and outside of formal contexts, but really comes into its own when applied to informal learning.

The question that is often uppermost in the minds of good educators is how to inspire students to go 'the extra mile' and begin to take the responsibility to learn for themselves. Independent learning, one of the central tenets of heutagogy, usually becomes evident when students become so fascinated by their topic that they can do nothing else but continue to pursue a deeper understanding of it. The era of personal technologies is one of the most important factors in the rise of heutagogy, and will be instrumental in sustaining it. Teachers should consider that students' personal technologies should not be banned from the classroom, but could instead be integrated into lessons and embedded as mind tools to extend and enrich the experience of learning.

Reference

Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2001) From Andragogy to Heutagogy. Available online here (Retrieved 6 June, 2014).

Previous posts in this series:

Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
Argyris Double Loop Learning
Bandura Social Learning Theory
Bruner Scaffolding Theory
Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
Dewey Experiential Learning
Engeström Activity Theory
Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
Festinger Social Comparison Theory
Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
Gibson Affordances Theory
Gregory Visual Perception Hypothesis

Photo by Baratunde Thurston on Flickr


Help yourself by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

What you see is what you think

A 3D Printed version of the Penrose Triangle

This is number 14 in my series on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my most recent post I discussed J J Gibson's affordances theory and its applications to education. In this post, we explore an alternative perspective on visual perception as proposed by British psychologist Richard Gregory. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

There are essentially two main explanations of visual perception. One is the direct perception approach proposed by James Gibson, which was discussed in my last blog post. Gibson's belief in a direct, bottom-up perception is often called the ecological model of perception, because it holds that all the possible uses (or affordances) of the object are embedded in its form. Once the object is seen, its affordances aid us in deciding how it is possible to use the object. It has been said that this interpretation of perception is 'data driven'. It is a case of 'what you see is what you get.'

Opposed to this is the top-down theory of visual perception, which was proposed by Richard Gregory. Gregory's theory suggests that the experience and previous encounters with similar objects comes first, before we even begin to examine the affordances of the object. Gregory calls this indirect perception, because a large percentage of the visual information is 'lost' before it reaches the brain for processing. This theory explains the confusion we sometimes experience when we see an optical illusion. Gregory describes top-down processing as a perceptual hypothesis - we form this hypothesis by testing what we see against our previous knowledge and understanding - in other words, we match patterns. Some illusions make us misinterpret what we see, because we fail to match the correct previously learnt patterns to what we are seeing. Gregory's theory is more a case of 'what you see is what you think'.

How it can be applied in education

According to this theory we make sense of the world around us through pattern recognition and matching. If children find it difficult to read some words, they can often make sense of the entire sentence by recognising the surrounding words, and then recreating the correct context within their minds. Gestalt psychology suggests something similar in the Law of Closure.

Simple tests where children are required to fill in the gaps in a sentence may therefore have less value in assessing knowledge than we think. On the other hand, teachers might consider giving students more complex versions. For example, presenting students with challenges to complete (or develop) half finished stories or artifacts could tap into great creative potential. Students will need to call upon previously learnt knowledge and also draw on their imagination to successfully complete these kinds of tasks.

According to Gregory, we actively construct our reality. Students should therefore be given as many chances as possible during lessons to do just that. Providing them with challenges, problems and questions, or better still - encouraging them to question - will help to support deeper learning through active engagement. Giving children only a part of the whole will challenge them to complete the rest themselves. They will have a strong desire to 'complete the circle', because it is inherent in human nature to make sense of what we see.

References

Gregory, R. L. (1970) The Intelligent Eye. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Gregory, R. L. (1974) Concepts and Mechanisms of Perception. London: Duckworth.

Previous posts in this series:

Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
Argyris Double Loop Learning
Bandura Social Learning Theory
Bruner Scaffolding Theory
Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
Dewey Experiential Learning
Engeström Activity Theory
Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
Festinger Social Comparison Theory
Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory
Gibson Affordances Theory

Photo by Chylld on Wikimedia Commons


What you see is what you think by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

What you see is what you get

Here is number 13 in my series of short posts on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists, providing a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my most recent post I examined Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences and its applications to education. In this post, we explore the work of James Jerome Gibson on the perception of everyday objects and his theory of  affordances. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

During the 80s and 90s there was a protracted debate between Richard Clark and Robert Kozma. Clark held that media were neutral and didn't influence learning whilst Kozma argued that media were laced with nuances that shaped our behaviour as we used them. Even before this, during the 60s, Marshall McLuhan had famously proclaimed that we shape our tools and then our tools shape us', but had then gone on to argue that 'the medium is the message'.  The waters were well and truly muddied and many were bemused by the entire discourse around media. Are they neutral tools or are they loaded with meaning - and do they actually influence learning in any way?

Even before any of the above discussions took place, James Gibson, a psychologist studying human perception presented an interesting theory that framed the entire debate.   In 1950 Gibson proposed that visual perception was direct perception. That is, what we see and the meaning we extract from it is directly obtained from the appearance of the object we are looking at. We see the object as it is. Correctly referred to as the ecological model of visual perception, we process the world we see bottom up, not top down.

Gibson later proposed that each object has affordances - the shape and design of the object suggests to us (possibly from our previous experiences) what we can do with the object and what we cannot do with it. A door handle provides us with the affordance of twisting and pushing (or pulling) and may also have a right-handed or left-handed affordance depending on which side of the door we are standing. A teapot and cups such as those in the image above also have affordances suggested by their shapes and their handles - and possibly even their relative positions to each other in space. Affordance theory represents the relationship between the design of an everyday object and its perceived purpose.

How it can apply to education

Some teachers might be surprised to hear that all children are creative. Most would understand however, that all children have wonderful imaginations, and can think divergently about almost anything if they are given the chance. Ask a young child how many uses there are for a brick, or a paper clip or a cup, and they will come up with hundreds of possible uses. This is because their creativity knows no bounds, and they are not influenced by a lifetime of learning that some things are not permissible or possible. Adults don't think of a paper clip that is a mile high and made of rubber, or a cup that can hold a million gallons of lemonade. As children grow older, this kind of divergent thinking sadly fades as they are indoctrinated into understanding 'the rules'. And yet Gibson's affordances theory implies that the use of the object, even if it is designed for specific purposes, can in fact be interpreted for other purposes by the perceiver. If this is true, then teachers have a huge opportunity to promote better learning through creativity. They could for example bring objects into the classroom as a part of a lesson to promote creative thinking and better problem solving skills.

Conversely, it is clear that good design makes the intended uses of objects much more explicit. The design of computer interfaces, software, games and even curricula, should be undertaken with affordances in mind. Designers can send direct messages to potential users simply by designing easily interpreted and unambiguous features into objects. These principles have spawned an entirely different approach to education which involves active engagement through design thinking, solution based learning, and even learning through wicked problems (a form of problem based learning).  For example, where do young people turn to when the answer to a question is not Googleable? And we would still like to know ... do media influence learning?

Reference

Gibson, J.J. (1950) The Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Previous posts in this series:

Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
Argyris Double Loop Learning
Bandura Social Learning Theory
Bruner Scaffolding Theory
Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
Dewey Experiential Learning
Engeström Activity Theory
Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
Festinger Social Comparison Theory
Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Gardner Multiple Intelligences Theory

Photo by Mori Masahiro on Wikimedia Commons


What you see is what you get by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Many pathways

This is number 12 in my series of short posts on learning theories. I'm working through the alphabet of psychologists and provide a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my most recent post I examined Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory and its applications to education. In this post, we explore the work of Howard Gardner, known universally as Multiple Intelligences Theory. As usual, this is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

Intelligence testing has long been practised in the education, military and business communities. In business and the military it is used to correlate intelligence quotient (IQ) scores against performance. Essentially, IQ is a psychological measurement of individual differences. In education, IQ testing has been used to measure children's intelligence so that they can be placed in the appropriate ability group. Later in life, students can be IQ tested for admission into university. Yet IQ has been shown to fluctuate over a period of time, and is now viewed by many as an unreliable indicator of holistic abilities and potential. One critic of IQ tests, Howard Gardner - a professor of psychology at Harvard University - argued that it IQ tests were too limited and only measured specific abilities such as visual-spatial awareness and logical-mathematical reasoning. He surmised that there must be a better way of showing how individuals differ in their potential and actual abilities. Gardner developed a new approach to the study of intelligence, by proposing a theory of multiple intelligences.

In MI, according to Gardner, there are at least nine discrete intelligences, including interpersonal, intra-personal, existential, spatial, mathematical, naturalistic and musical. Each can be developed in every individual, depending not only on their natural abilities, but also on their motivation and other external factors. Gardner argues that each individual has a unique blend of intelligences, and that labeling students as being predominantly one kind of intelligence is inaccurate and disempowering. In short, there are many pathways to learning, and we all choose our own.

How it can be applied in education

Gardner's theory is a student centred theory in as much as it recognises the many individual differences and acknowledges that there are many ways to learn. Teachers should be aware that every child is different, and will excel in different circumstances. This means varying the pace, focus, method and content of lessons so that a menu of different experiences are available. It also means rejecting the labeling of children as failures or lacking intelligence because they do not excel in particular subjects. Not all children have good logical or mathematical skills, but they can be taught to acquire them if the subject is made interesting. For Gardner, a rounded education is where all children are served by a 'broader vision of education' where a wide range of methods, experiences and opportunities are presented.

Schools do not fail because they do not call at every station along the curriculum. They fail because their pedagogic carriage is restricted, and they are unable to bring all the children with them on the education journey.

Reference

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. London: Fontana Press.

Previous posts in this series:

Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
Argyris Double Loop Learning
Bandura Social Learning Theory
Bruner Scaffolding Theory
Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
Dewey Experiential Learning
Engeström Activity Theory
Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
Festinger Social Comparison Theory
Festinger Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Photo by Simon G on Flickr


Many pathways Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Conflict resolution

This is number 11 in my series of short posts on learning theories. My intention is to work through the alphabet of psychologists and provide a brief overview of each theory, and how it can be applied in education. In my most recent post I examined Leon Festinger's work on social comparison and its applications to education. In this post, we continue to explore Festinger's work, this time focusing on his theory of cognitive dissonance. This is a simplified interpretation of the theory, so if you wish to learn more, please read the associated literature.

The theory

American psychologist Leon Festinger was interested in the conflict that we experience when our beliefs or values do not coincide with other values and beliefs. We naturally like consistency but if this consistency is challenged by external influences, we experience discomfort, and tend to attempt to rationalise this through reasoning. Festinger called this phenomenon cognitive dissonance. In effect, says Festinger, we seek to reduce our dissonance through attempting to rationalise our thoughts and beliefs and those with which they conflict. This may emerge as modified behaviour to reduce the dissonance, or alternatively an entrenchment of our previous beliefs and a rejection of those inconsistent with our own beliefs. Cognitive dissonance is essentially a theory of motivation through conflict resolution.

Here is one of Festinger's examples of cognitive dissonance in real life: "The person who continues to smoke, knowing that it is bad for his health, may also feel (a) he enjoys smoking so much it is worth it; (b) the chances of his health suffering are not as serious as some would make out; (c) he can't always avoid every possible dangerous contingency and still live; and (d) perhaps even if he stopped smoking he would put on weight which is equally bad for his health. So, continuing to smoke is, after all, consistent with his ideas about smoking." (Festinger, 1957, p 2)

How it can be applied in education

A lot of learning is based upon making decisions and solving problems. Indeed, problem based learning is thought to be one of the most effective situated learning methods. Some problems we encounter in education have conflicting outcomes. As Kendra Cherry argues: "Cognitive dissonance plays a role in many value judgements, decisions and evaluations. Becoming aware of how conflicting beliefs impact the decision-making process is a great way to improve your ability to make faster and more accurate choices." Teachers should be aware that often, such conflicting outcomes can lead to confusion. However, if managed appropriately, this can be a positive motivator for students to learn more. Ill-structured problems, where the problem is only partially defined and where students need to 'fill in the gaps' discover that such problems can have several possible solutions. Each solution is valid, and deeper learning occurs through discussion between students on which solution is the best.

I have previously stated that I sometimes send my students out confused. This is a deliberate pedagogical method to spur them on to learn more - to attempt to reduce their cognitive dissonance by wider study of their course material and deeper critical reflection on their learning.

Often in learning, our expectations are not realised by the reality of a situation. This results in disappointment, which can be described as a form of cognitive dissonance. How we cope with this disappointment defines who we become. Teachers should be aware that not all disappointment is negative, and that some experiences where reality does not meet expectation could be exactly the motivation students need to try harder. As ever however, such classroom tactics should be premised on a good knowledge of one's students.

Even in behaviour management, cognitive dissonance can provide some useful guidance. Where behaviour is concerned, personal learning through reasoning is stronger than the threat of punishment. Hans and Michael Eysenck (1981) wrote that teaching children that stone-throwing is anti-social can be more effective if they are challenged to think about their actions, rather than being threatened with punishment. They comment that it is better for a child to reduce his cognitive dissonance by reasoning that he should stop throwing stones because he realises it is wrong, than to think 'I was forced to stop throwing stones but I still want to do it'. If he reasons for himself, he is more likely to think 'I don't really want to throw stones anyway.'

Here are a few more ideas on how cognitive dissonance could be applied in education.

References

Eysenck, H. and Eysenck, M. (1981) Mindwatching. London: Book Club Associates.
Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Los Angeles: Stanford University Press.

Previous posts in this series:

Anderson ACT-R Cognitive Architecture
Argyris Double Loop Learning
Bandura Social Learning Theory
Bruner Scaffolding Theory
Craik and Lockhart Levels of Processing
Csíkszentmihályi Flow Theory
Dewey Experiential Learning
Engeström Activity Theory
Ebbinghaus Learning and Forgetting Curves
Festinger Social Comparison Theory

Photo by Brenna Lyn on Flickr


Conflict resolution Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.