A word about writers, writing, and education...

Academics and many other educators refer to readings by the name(s) of the author(s) -- so will we. There is a reason for this. Each of the articles, chapters, and books you will read this quarter were written by a person or group of people taking a particular position. Their writing is an argument for that position -- supporting their theory, their interpretation of data/observations, their version of the truth. Unless we keep in mind the human beings behind the writing, the ideas can take on a life of their own; they can take on the characteristics of revealed truths. Unless we pay attention to how they make their argument, we risk either accepting or dismissing their ideas based primarily on how similar they are to our own, rather than on the merits of their argument.

The readings with which we start the quarter, Duckworth, Skinner, and Bruner, take positions on teaching based on particular theories of learning. Each author presents an interpretation of evidence in support of their position. In your writing for this course, you will do the same thing. We will all read critically, asking ourselves, what makes them say that? What evidence have they provided? What is the logic of their argument? It is the easiest to do this when we find ourselves disagreeing with an author's position; it is harder when what they say fits neatly into our own views. It is hardest when you are critically reading your own writing, but asking those questions will help you clarify your thinking, whether as a reader or a writer.

A word about these readings as historical documents:

Skinner's article was published in 1958 when behaviorism was the primary theory of learning. Bruner wrote The Process of Education in 1959, before nonsexist language was the norm, in the shadow of Sputnik and the beginning of the Race for Space. Barbel Inhelder was a woman, the only female participant in the Woods Hole Conference. Skinner was also in attendance.Think of these documents as products of their time and place.

A Brief Introduction to B. F. Skinner and the Law of Effect

Skinner assumes that you are familiar with the basic tenets of behavioral learning theory, the dominant theory of learning for several decades in the middle of the last century. When I began teaching in 1976, this is the theory we learned in our teacher preparation courses.

If you are familiar with the theory, you can skip this section. If not, here are the bare bones of the theory:

All learning is a matter of creating or strengthening connections between a stimulus (S) and a response (R). This is called a "stimulus-response bond" or SR bond.

The Law of Effect states that if a particular response to a stimulus is reinforced, it will be more likely to occur in the future in the presence of that stimulus.

A reinforcer (R+), then, is anything that increases the likelihood of the stimulus eliciting that response in the future.

The fastest learning occurs with continuous reinforcement: every response is followed by a reinforcer.

This learning is vulnerable to extinction (disappearance of the S-R bond that happens when a response is no longer reinforced.)

To make learning durable, it is best to use intermittent reinforcement: reinforce some responses, preferably on an unpredictable schedule.

Shaping is a process of teaching a complex behavior. Suppose I want to teach a chicken to turn in a circle when a red light goes on. I turn on the red light and wait for the chicken, who is moving randomly around the cage, to begin a turn to the right. When it does, I dispense a food pellet as a reinforcer. The chicken resumes random movement. I turn on the red light. The next time it turns to the right, I release another pellet (continuous reinforcement). Pretty soon, the chicken has connected the red light (S), the turn (R), and the food pellet reinforcer (R+). It is reliably turning to the right when it sees the red light. Now I stop reinforcing just a one-step turn, waiting for the chicken to continue turning a second step. As soon as it does, I reinforce it. Sooner than before, the chicken is repeatedly turning two steps to the right. I continue in this manner until the chicken learns to turn in a complete circle to get the pellet. I have "shaped up" circle-turning in response to a red light.

In the view of Skinner and other behaviorists, all learning can be explained as a chain of S-R bonds, or learned responses to stimuli.

Jerome Bruner: The Process of Education

As you are reading Bruner, here are some things to ponder. We'll be talking about these ideas in class.

• What does Bruner mean by the structure of the subject matter, and what is its role in teaching and learning?
• What is the structure of the discipline with which you are most familiar (math, biology, physics, etc.)? Be as specific as you can.
• What are the "fundamental ideas" of your discipline, in the sense that Bruner uses the phrase?
• Read the paragraph on p. 31 which begins, "To recapitulate…" What is your personal position on Bruner's claims? On what do you base that position?

Would Bruner and Skinner agree on how disciplines are structured? If not, what might their differences be? What evidence do you see in the readings for your view?

What are the similarities and differences in the views of Skinner, Duckworth & Bruner about the role of the teacher in student learning? Find evidence in the text to support your view and be prepared to discuss it in class.

How do they differ on what counts as real learning? How do you know?