Edward C. Tolman (1886- 1959)
Sign Theory
Latent Learning
Biography
Tolman was an influential early learning theorist who introduced a number of new concepts and vocabulary to the field of learning psychology. Tolman studied engineering at MIT. In 1912 he studied with Gestaltist Koffka. He spent most of his career at the University of California (Berkeley) after earning his Ph.D.at Harvard in 1915. He worked closely with his research students in a dynamic interactive environment and confessed that he got many of his ideas from his students.
Theory
Tolman termed his system of psychology "purposive behaviorism" as it captured one of his fundamental notions that organism produce behavior for some adaptive purpose. He started out as a behaviorist but acquired an interest in Gestalt theories from Kurt Lewin, and adapted some Gestalt concepts into his work. He developed a distaste for Watson's behaviorism because he disliked "mechanistic behaviorism's reductionistic perspectives. He believed individuals do more than merely respond to stimuli; they act on beliefs, attitudes, changing conditions, and they strive toward goals. Tolman is virtually the only behaviorist who found the Stimulus-Response theoryunacceptable, because reinforcement was not necessary for learning to occur. He felt behavior was holistic, purposive, and cognitive. Tolman's views can be summarized by saying that behavior is not a response to a stimulus but is cognitive coping with a pattern of stimuli.
In his Sign Gestalt Theory, he put forth the notion that there are three parts to learning which work together as a gestalt. These are the "significant" or goal of behavior, the "sign" or signal for action, and "means-end relations" which were internal processes and relationships. He believed learning is an accumulation of these sign gestalts, and that they are then configured into cognitive maps. Input about the environment, which is ongoing, also influences behavior in that it causes certain gestalts to be selected or not, in relation to the individuals purpose or goals, and other factors. In this sense, learning is unique to each individual. (see later discussions of schemas and constructivism).
Tolman coined the term "cognitive map", which was an internal perceptual representation of external environmental features and landmarks. He thought that individuals acquire large numbers of cues from the environment and build up expectancies about their permanence or changeable characteristics. By using this internal representation of a physical space they could get to the goal by knowing where it is in a complex of environmental features. Short cuts and variable routes are possible with this model. Whereas behaviorists viewed training as a way to build up a certain set of sequenced responses, Tolman thought that training would lead to a tendency to go to a certain place. The subjects would learn where to go, not just how to go.
Tolman was a "centralist". He felt that learning was dominantly a function of the central nervous system, as opposed to "peripheralism", the view of behaviorism.
Tolman also worked on "Latent Learning", defined as learning which is not apparent in the learner's behavior at the time of learning, but which manifests later when a suitable motivation and circumstances appear. The idea of latent learning was not original to Tolman, but he developed it further.
Tolman also introduced “intervening variables” into the nomenclature of learning psychology. (This was very influential to Hull, who adopted the concept and terminology). In Tolman's system there were three classes of variables.
1. Dependent (behaviors or responses being observed and measured)
2. Independent (2 types were Environmental and Individual variation)
3. Intervening – these are hypothetical constructs rather than physical parameters. They are definable and measurable but not observable. They have functional relationships with both independent and dependent variables. They are internal cognitive processes.
Expectancy Theory – In animal experiments Tolman and his associates trained subjects to learn a maze with a preferred food as a reward. They observed that if they switched to a less preferred reward, the rats displayed disgust. Tolman attributed this to acquisition of expectancies in response to the signs or stimuli of a particular situation. The problem was, he never defined expectancy even though it was a powerful element in his system.
Tolman identified at least six types of learning.
1. Learning by cathexes – connecting or associating basic drives with desired goals with the end result of developing preferences for certain types of food, drink, sex-objects, etc.
2. Equivalence beliefs – sub-goals leading to major ones acquire similar attractiveness as the end goals.
3. Field expectancies – Acquisitions of sets of gestalts (internal maps) enable the individual to route himself based on these internal maps.
4. Field cognition modes – learning is influenced by the ways that perceptions, memories, and inferences function.
5. Drive discrimination – learning to discriminate between competing or more refined drives
6. Motor patterns- learning and refinement of sensory – motor skills.
Tolman wanted to disprove Thorndike's Law of Effect and replace it with his own set of 3 laws.
1. Law of Motivation – learning is propelled by gaining final successes or avoiding final failures. It is these that give purpose to the learning activity.
2. Law of Emphasis – Learning consists of building up patterns and gestalts and then selecting or emphasizing particular responses which emerge that tend to favor getting to the ultimate final success. The organism emphasizes certain behaviors over others because they grant better pleasure or survival value.
3. Law of Disruption – violent stimuli either physical (such as electrical shock) or emotional coming in sequence with the right or wrong responses will tend to disrupt learning.
Summary
Tolman was similar to the behaviorists in his emphasis on objectivity and measurement. He differed in that he did not believe reinforcement was necessary for learning to occur. Problems with his work were that he poorly defined many terms that he used in his fundamental theories, and that is difficult to make predictions from an expectancy point of view because of lack of determining the nature and strength of expectations before hand and when or how expectations may change.
Learning Theory Bibliography
Sign Theory
Latent Learning
Biography
Tolman was an influential early learning theorist who introduced a number of new concepts and vocabulary to the field of learning psychology. Tolman studied engineering at MIT. In 1912 he studied with Gestaltist Koffka. He spent most of his career at the University of California (Berkeley) after earning his Ph.D.at Harvard in 1915. He worked closely with his research students in a dynamic interactive environment and confessed that he got many of his ideas from his students.
Theory
Tolman termed his system of psychology "purposive behaviorism" as it captured one of his fundamental notions that organism produce behavior for some adaptive purpose. He started out as a behaviorist but acquired an interest in Gestalt theories from Kurt Lewin, and adapted some Gestalt concepts into his work. He developed a distaste for Watson's behaviorism because he disliked "mechanistic behaviorism's reductionistic perspectives. He believed individuals do more than merely respond to stimuli; they act on beliefs, attitudes, changing conditions, and they strive toward goals. Tolman is virtually the only behaviorist who found the Stimulus-Response theoryunacceptable, because reinforcement was not necessary for learning to occur. He felt behavior was holistic, purposive, and cognitive. Tolman's views can be summarized by saying that behavior is not a response to a stimulus but is cognitive coping with a pattern of stimuli.
In his Sign Gestalt Theory, he put forth the notion that there are three parts to learning which work together as a gestalt. These are the "significant" or goal of behavior, the "sign" or signal for action, and "means-end relations" which were internal processes and relationships. He believed learning is an accumulation of these sign gestalts, and that they are then configured into cognitive maps. Input about the environment, which is ongoing, also influences behavior in that it causes certain gestalts to be selected or not, in relation to the individuals purpose or goals, and other factors. In this sense, learning is unique to each individual. (see later discussions of schemas and constructivism).
Tolman coined the term "cognitive map", which was an internal perceptual representation of external environmental features and landmarks. He thought that individuals acquire large numbers of cues from the environment and build up expectancies about their permanence or changeable characteristics. By using this internal representation of a physical space they could get to the goal by knowing where it is in a complex of environmental features. Short cuts and variable routes are possible with this model. Whereas behaviorists viewed training as a way to build up a certain set of sequenced responses, Tolman thought that training would lead to a tendency to go to a certain place. The subjects would learn where to go, not just how to go.
Tolman was a "centralist". He felt that learning was dominantly a function of the central nervous system, as opposed to "peripheralism", the view of behaviorism.
Tolman also worked on "Latent Learning", defined as learning which is not apparent in the learner's behavior at the time of learning, but which manifests later when a suitable motivation and circumstances appear. The idea of latent learning was not original to Tolman, but he developed it further.
Tolman also introduced “intervening variables” into the nomenclature of learning psychology. (This was very influential to Hull, who adopted the concept and terminology). In Tolman's system there were three classes of variables.
1. Dependent (behaviors or responses being observed and measured)
2. Independent (2 types were Environmental and Individual variation)
3. Intervening – these are hypothetical constructs rather than physical parameters. They are definable and measurable but not observable. They have functional relationships with both independent and dependent variables. They are internal cognitive processes.
Expectancy Theory – In animal experiments Tolman and his associates trained subjects to learn a maze with a preferred food as a reward. They observed that if they switched to a less preferred reward, the rats displayed disgust. Tolman attributed this to acquisition of expectancies in response to the signs or stimuli of a particular situation. The problem was, he never defined expectancy even though it was a powerful element in his system.
Tolman identified at least six types of learning.
1. Learning by cathexes – connecting or associating basic drives with desired goals with the end result of developing preferences for certain types of food, drink, sex-objects, etc.
2. Equivalence beliefs – sub-goals leading to major ones acquire similar attractiveness as the end goals.
3. Field expectancies – Acquisitions of sets of gestalts (internal maps) enable the individual to route himself based on these internal maps.
4. Field cognition modes – learning is influenced by the ways that perceptions, memories, and inferences function.
5. Drive discrimination – learning to discriminate between competing or more refined drives
6. Motor patterns- learning and refinement of sensory – motor skills.
Tolman wanted to disprove Thorndike's Law of Effect and replace it with his own set of 3 laws.
1. Law of Motivation – learning is propelled by gaining final successes or avoiding final failures. It is these that give purpose to the learning activity.
2. Law of Emphasis – Learning consists of building up patterns and gestalts and then selecting or emphasizing particular responses which emerge that tend to favor getting to the ultimate final success. The organism emphasizes certain behaviors over others because they grant better pleasure or survival value.
3. Law of Disruption – violent stimuli either physical (such as electrical shock) or emotional coming in sequence with the right or wrong responses will tend to disrupt learning.
Summary
Tolman was similar to the behaviorists in his emphasis on objectivity and measurement. He differed in that he did not believe reinforcement was necessary for learning to occur. Problems with his work were that he poorly defined many terms that he used in his fundamental theories, and that is difficult to make predictions from an expectancy point of view because of lack of determining the nature and strength of expectations before hand and when or how expectations may change.
Learning Theory Bibliography
No comments:
Post a Comment