A short history of psychological theories of learning : Jerome Bruner

IMG_5345.JPG

A short history of psychological theories of learning : Jerome Bruner 1984
Daedalus, Quarterly journal, MIT Press, 2004 Winter, American Academy of Arts and Science.

이 글은 19-20세기에 이르기까지 전반적인 learning theory의 변화에 개괄하고 있다.
이 시대를 아우르는 커다란 두 가지 틀은
1. Atomism / Associationism / Behaviorism / Stimulus- Response learning theory
2. Configurationism / Gestalt psychology /

로 나누어진다. 1은 초기의 이론인데, 이는 곧 2에 의해 반격을 받고, 현재 추세는 2에서 이어진다고 볼 수 있다.
1은 교육, 습득이 고정적인 개념이고, 이 결과를 위해 conditioned된 lab 실험을 수행했다. 쥐 등을 대상으로 해서. 이러한 실험은 현실적 조건과 동떨어졌고, 인간에게 적용시키기 힘들다고 보는데에서 2는 시작한다.
2는 인간의 교육, 습득 과정은 유동적이고 끊임없이 수정, 보완된다고 본다.

Two competing paradigm,
1) Associationism : The atomism of learning theory embodies the notion that learning consists of the association of ideas, memories, sensations, whatever. At its heart is the conception of the associative bond. p.14.
연합주의, 연상주의, 원자론 : 우리가 다양한 아이디어들을 마음 속에서 연결지음으로써 생각하고, 학습한다.
기능주의, 행동주의.
인간의 복잡한 사고, 행동은 보다 단순하 ㄴ여러 가지의 사고, 행동이 결합되어 나타나는 결과물이다.
학습은 단순한 연합에 기인한다.
추상적이고 일상, reality와 괴리가 크다.

Ancient provenance. Aristotle, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Mills,
Pavlof

2) Configurationism : molar configuration.
mind and brain alike iperate as integral systems controlling the functioning of components parts.
Geltalt psychology : is the most direct expression of this view, and it had much to say about how learning was a matter of overall organization rather than of local associative linkage. 전체는 부분의 합보다 크다. p.15.

인간은 자신이 지각한 것을 조직화하려는 기본 성향이 있다. 인간은 대상을 개별적 부분의 조합으로서가 아니라, 전체로 인식하는 존재이다. 총체적, 종합적.
Koeler

두 분야 모두 뇌과학의 발달과 밀접하게 연관이 있다. Electrical stimulation of different spots in the medial lateral cortex produces particular, quite finite motor responses. p.14.

19 세기 후반
1) Associationism :
the rise of the associationist paradigm.
Pavlov (개 종소리로 음식 컨트롤 하던 인간) conditioned reflex(조건 반사) : Pavlov’s paradigm physicalized associationism. All his paradigms required was linking and relinking stimuli and responses.

2) Configurationism p.16.
People start to aware of the associationism’s abstactness and its remotness from ordinary experience.
Gestalt theory was the prime exemplar of the configurationist trend in those early years. “The whole is the greater than the sum of its parts.”
Koehler had a deep belief in the ubiquitous of configurationism in all of nature. He attarcked on associationism. Pavlov 도 나중에 자신의 이론 수정한다. Pavlov himself came to advocate a kind of linguistic configurationism.

American before WW1
The climax of the rivalry between associationism and configurationism came in America in the years before WW1.
미국에서 associationism은 곧 behaviorism으로 발전한다. Thorndike 같은 학자들.
Pavlov J.B. Watson (개 실험과 다른 인물), the founder of american behaviorism, stressed how all learning accurred through stimulus and response. p.17.
Hull, Skinner, Hunter 등.
Skinner는 operating conditions. In this austere terms, learning is under the sole control of schedules of reinforcement. and reinforcement can only be positive. p.19.
같은 associationist였던 Hull도 이에는 반대.
there are positive and negative reinforcement, what makes a conditional stimulus generalize along a certain gradient, how organisms anticipate reinforces, and the like. p.19.

모든 것은 well-designed animal experiment에 근거한다.
artificial experimental paradigms, mazes, paired-associative work lists, nonsense syllables, and etc.
곧 유럽에서와 마찬가지로, contrarian configurationism이 등장한다. influenced by Gestalt theorists.
The displaced members of the old Gestalt grouop were soon well placed in learning American universities.
An achievement given the hold of behaviorist American psychology. Learning began to be understood as grasping things in CONTEXT, not in BITS. p.18.
Edward Tolman, Koehler, Lewin,

Tolman said that learning is like mapmaking. He believed that our cognitive maps are not mirrors, but a record of our strivings and what has proved to their outcome. p.18.
Tolman 은 cognitive map theory.

The conflict between Hull and Skinner and between both the them and Tolman were the last battles of the learning theory wars. Learning theory in the classic sense died around 1960

1960 이후
It was congnitive revoluton that brought down learning theory. molar, cognitive learning theories, many of their ideas were restated and absorbed into general cognitive theories, such as Bruner.
1960후반에는 information에 대한 인식.
By the late 1960s, learning was being translated into the concepts of information processing.
Transition period, I think that it was the study of language and particularly of language acquisition that precipitated learning theory’s decline. 언어학의 발전이 learning theory 패러다임의 근본적 변화에 큰 영향을 미쳤다. p.19.
The contemporary linguistic assault on associatioist learning theory began with Noam Chomsky.

One tests in context, not in a maze and knows without extrapolation whether the experiment has any bearning on real learning by real people in real life.
You cannot strip leaning of its content, nor study it in a neutral context. IT is always situated, always related to some ongoing enterprise Perhaps there is no such things as learning in general.
p.20.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s