Register Here

  © 2008
  University of Idaho
  All rights reserved.
  Psychology Dept.
  University of Idaho
  Design - P&D  CTI

Learning is defined in very many different ways. The first way is by Webster’s. Webster’s defines learning as “an act or experience of one that learns or knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or study.” Other people have also defined learning in other ways. In older psychology models, primarily from the behaviorists, we talk about learning as defined as “Changes in behavior as a result of experience.” Now despite those different models, each of them have problems for psychology. Probably the best model or definition of learning is one that is described by Kline. Kline defines learning as an experiential, not experimental process resulting in a relatively permanent change in behavior that cannot be explained by temporary states, maturation or innate response tendencies. And as we see on slide four, there are several major points that we will need to talk about:

So let’s talk about these.

First of all, learning reflects a change in the potential for behavior, says Kline. It doesn’t automatically lead to changes in behavior, that is, you have the potential for it, but it doesn’t automatically cause it.

On slide six, we see that Kline contends that behavior is relatively permanent and that changes in behavior due to learning are permanent, and that new experiences can override previously learned experiences. So the material that you learned as a youngster can be overridden as you get older.

Finally, other processes can also influence learning and that changes in behavior can be due to other processes other than learning. For example, eating can be motivated to eat by physiological processes and that’s due to blood sugar and other things. However, eating can also be influenced by other things, such as classical conditioning. When you go and have something new and if you get real sick, you’ll tend not to eat that again. That’s a classical conditioning phenomena that we’ll talk about at a little bit later date.

So in essence, these different parts of the definition are extremely important and we need to remember them.

There’s a lot of philosophical assumptions and trends that have influenced learning, so let’s talk about these briefly before we move into kind of a more historical context. Often some of these build over into philosophical context as well.

The first group or philosophical model or underpinning or assumptions come from what we call the empiricists. A couple of empiricists are Lock and Aristotle. What the empiricists basically say is this. All knowledge comes from experience, nothing is innate, nothing is genetically programmed in you, etc. At birth your mind is basically a mind of mush, it is basically a tabula rasa or what we call a blank slate.

Now that is in contrast to the second model; that is, the nativist group. The classic example of a nativist is Plato and what Plato basically says is this. All knowledge is inside of you when you’re born, and what you have to do is use different methods to get it out. What are those methods? We use reasoning processes and we use questioning processes.

Now that is in contrast to the third group, and these are the rationalists. Trationalists basically say we get knowledge by reasoning about things and nothing more.

And that is in contrast, again, to the next group, which are, as you see on page 12, the determinists. The determinists basically say that all behavior is predictable and that your behavior is entirely determined by your hereditary and your environment, and includes both your past environment and your present environment.

Finally that is in contrast to the people that we see on page 13, and that is the free will folk. The free will folk basically make this argument. That even though no matter what you have out there, your genetics, your environment or whatever, it’s your free will that determines your action, that is, you have the power to determine what is going on within you. You are responsible for your behavior, not your environment, not your genetics, etc. And as you can see, a lot of this comes out of some of the traditional religious models that we have out there as well.

So in essence, these different philosophical groups of thought and kind of contrast each other.

Now there are other groups of thought as well. And the second major group of thought is shown on page 14. That is the associationists and the atomists. What the associationists basically say is this. Knowledge is basically a series of connections and/or associations about things. The atomists contend that complex things come from simpler things and that simpler things can be made into complex things. In essence the associationists are going to become extremely important because if things connect between each other, then those connections are going to drive and make new stuff. That is what the British associationists and others talk about, which we will talk about a little bit later in the class. For the atomists, the classic example of atomism comes from chemistry where you take complex things like molecules and break them down into the simpler elements, ala atoms. And what the atomists say is, “that you can also do that with the mind, and this will come up as we discuss and talk about the structuralists of psychology a little bit later in Schools of Psychology.

Finally the third major influence within the models of learning is what is called scientific materialism. What scientific materialists basically contend is that you don’t need anything beyond scientific physical principles to explain things. People can be explained without some special life force, such as the mind, etc., and we use the same terms for humans that we use for other things. So we use the same physiological terms, the same chemistry terms, etc., to explain what we are.

So in conclusion in this section, each of these major influences are going to have major impacts on models of learning and theories of learning. In the next section, we’re going to begin talking about some of the early philosophers of learning. When we do this, watch the circularity and the repetition of things that occur. Observe that some stuff we talk about with the Greek philosophers will come back over and over and over again in the middle ages and in later learning and philosophical thought. So until that time, look in the next section, and have yourself a great day.