Connectionism (Edward Thorndike)

The learning theory of Thorndike represents the original S-R framework of behavioral psychology:
Learning is the result of associations forming between stimuli and responses. Such associations or
“habits” become strengthened or weakened by the nature and frequency of the S-R pairings. The
paradigm for S-R theory was trial and error learning in which certain responses come to dominate
others due to rewards. The hallmark of connectionism (like all behavioral theory) was that learning
could be adequately explained without refering to any unobservable internal states.
Thorndike’s theory consists of three primary laws: (1) law of effect – responses to a situation which
are followed by a rewarding state of affairs will be strengthened and become habitual responses to
that situation, (2) law of readiness – a series of responses can be chained together to satisfy some
goal which will result in annoyance if blocked, and (3) law of exercise – connections become
strengthened with practice and weakened when practice is discontinued. A corollary of the law of
effect was that responses that reduce the likelihood of achieving a rewarding state (i.e., punishments,
failures) will decrease in strength.
The theory suggests that transfer of learning depends upon the presence of identical elements in the
original and new learning situations; i.e., transfer is always specific, never general. In later versions of
the theory, the concept of “belongingness” was introduced; connections are more readily established
if the person perceives that stimuli or responses go together (c.f. Gestalt principles). Another concept
introduced was “polarity” which specifies that connections occur more easily in the direction in which
they were originally formed than the opposite. Thorndike also introduced the “spread of effect” idea,
i.e., rewards affect not only the connection that produced them but temporally adjacent connections
as well.
References
 Thorndike, E. (1913). Educational Psychology: The Psychology of Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
 Thorndike, E. (1921). The Teacher’s Word Book. New York: Teachers College.
 Thorndike, E. (1922). The Psychology of Arithmetic. New York: Macmillan.
 Thorndike, E. (1932). The Fundamentals of Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
 Thorndike, E. at al. (1927). The Measurement of Intelligence. New York: Teachers College Press.

Constructivist Theory (Jerome Bruner)

A major theme in the theoretical framework of Bruner is that learning is an active process in which
learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. The learner
selects and transforms information, constructs hypotheses, and makes decisions, relying on a
cognitive structure to do so. Cognitive structure (i.e., schema, mental models) provides meaning and
organization to experiences and allows the individual to “go beyond the information given”.
As far as instruction is concerned, the instructor should try and encourage students to discover
principles by themselves. The instructor and student should engage in an active dialog (i.e., socratic
learning). The task of the instructor is to translate information to be learned into a format appropriate
to the learner’s current state of understanding. Curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so
tBruner (1966) states that a theory of instruction should address four major aspects: (1)
predisposition towards learning, (2) the ways in which a body of knowledge can be structured so that
it can be most readily grasped by the learner, (3) the most effective sequences in which to present
material, and (4) the nature and pacing of rewards and punishments. Good methods for structuring
knowledge should result in simplifying, generating new propositions, and increasing the manipulation
of information.
In his more recent work, Bruner (1986, 1990, 1996) has expanded his theoretical framework to
encompass the social and cultural aspects of learning as well as the practice of law.

References
 Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.
 Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton.
 Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, A. (1956). A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley.
Academic Engagement. The Prevalence of Disengagement. Student academic disengagement is ubiquitous in American schools.
The National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2004) has found that large numbers of American students are not fully
engaged intellectually in the teaching and learning enterprise (Marks, 2000). A high school survey of student engagement
conducted by Indiana University and given to more than 300,000 students since 2004 shows that most students perceive that
their school experience does not contribute substantially to personal gains in solving real world problems, developing personal
values, understanding themselves or making their community a better place – all activities that are highly associated with
democratic schooling (High School Survey on Student Engagement (HSSSE, 2005).

This is troubling, as low levels of academic engagement has negative effects, one being a lack of academic achievement
(Voelkl, 1997, Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Dropping out of school is the most severe effect and is the culmination of
many forms of disengagement - absenteeism, poor overall attitude about school, and greater number of discipline referrals (Finn,
1993). These effects of student disengagement are most severe among minority students, whose group scores are lower in
achievement andhigher in drop-out rates (Voelkl, 1997). Due to this trend, the concept of academic engagement has received
increasing attention. Academic engagement is seen as a possible antidote to declining student academic motivation and
achievement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). The concept of academic engagement, and its link to student achievement
may provide a new perspective from which to examine the achievement gap. Studies of engagement can be especially hopeful
because engagement is responsive to variation in environment (Connell, 1990; Finn & Rock, 1997; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and
Paris, 2004). Teacher behaviors, a school’s climate, and the elimination of racist beliefs can positively impact students’ academic
engagement (Finn, 1993; Marks, 2000, Ogbu, 2003). By examining practices through the lens of engagement, teachers and schools
may be able to narrow the achievement gap. The next section identifies three types of academic engagement, behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive. Research shows that these three types of engagement have positive effects on student academic
achievement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris, 2004). Behavioral engagement. Behavioral engagement is usually defined as active
participation in both academic and nonacademic school activities. Behavioral academic engagement is linked to overall positive
student conduct – following the rules in the classroom and a lack of disruptive school behavior (Finn, 1993; Finn, Pannozzo, &
Voelkl, 1995; Finn & Rock, 1997). In addition, displaying academic behaviors, such as making an effort, showing persistence, 11
asking questions, and maintaining concentration, are also indicators of behavioral engagement (Finn et al., 1995; Skinner &
Belmont, 1993).

Emotional engagement. Emotional engagement, which is similar to behavioral engagement, refers to an array of student
emotions and actions related to schools and classrooms. Students’ affective reactions (boredom, sadness, and anxiety) are a
mechanism of emotional engagement (Connell & Wellborn, 1991, Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Researchers have also assessed
emotional engagement by measuring student reactions to school, and teachers and have found that students who are more
emotionally engaged in school show higher academic achievement (Lee & Smith, 1995; Stipek, 2002).

Cognitive engagement. Cognitive engagement research has stressed an overall investment in learning (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, &
Paris, 2004). Students who show an investment in learning have higher grades and test scores and are less likely to be disruptive,
truant, or drop out (Klem & Connell, 2004). Newmann, Secada, & Wehlage (1995) define engagement in academic work as a
“student’s psychological investment in and effort directed toward learning, understanding, and mastering the knowledge, skills, or
crafts that the academic work is intended to promote” (p. 12). Cognitive engagement has also been characterized as an
investment in learning, wherein students demonstrate behavior that goes beyond stated expectations and seek academic
challenges (Connell & Wellborn, 1991).

Developmentally Appropriate Schooling at the Middle Level. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development is a group
comprised of educators, researchers, government officials, and media leaders dedicated to examining the conditions of American
10- to 14- year-olds in an effort to improve their education. Middle-level students are in a period of rapid physical, intellectual,
and social change (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). The transition from elementary school to a less
supportive middle-school environment has been associated with lower self-esteem, decline in academic self-esteem, and decline
in school identification (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Unfortunately, there has been a gross mismatch between the intellectual,
emotional, and interpersonal needs of middle-level learners and the organization of middle schools (Carnegie Council on
Adolescent Development, 1989). Studies show that middle-level students are not academically engaged enough to develop the
skills necessary to make economic and social contributions needed as adults (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Students’ lack of
engagement hinders their ability to solve complex problems, communicate well with others, and think abstractly (Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). Yair’s (2000) research shows the importance of a school environment that is positive,
wherein students feel cared about, they are supported in believing that they can succeed, and wherein academic success in an
important goal. Student engagement increases in schools that do not set up specific curriculum tracks, but rather have small class
sizes, rigorous standards, and a culture of shared decision-making (Marks, 2000; 13 Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).
Students who do not identify with the school are often disengaged. Disengagement increases in schools that are bureaucratically
organized (Newmann, 1981, cited in Marks, 2000). Schools that allow for meaningless, low-level work and impersonal
relationships with peers and teachers produce disengaged students. Research on restructured schools – schools that have less
departmentalization, more heterogeneous grouping, and more team-teaching – found consistently positive effects on both
engagement and achievement (Lee & Smith, 1993). This study’s purpose is to further the research on student academic
engagement by expanding the relationship between engagement and achievement. This study uses data collected from 8th grade
students because engagement is a key component of a developmentally-appropriate middle school model. This model calls for a
school structure that is engaging for 10- to 14- year-old students. Using a responsive middleschool model to enhance engagement
has the possibility of increasing student achievement and, in turn, narrowing the achievement gap between white and black
students.

Definition of Key Terms Academic Achievement Gap. Is defined as “the persistent presence of different average achievement
levels for racial or ethnic groups” (J. Astor, personal communication, May 23, 2007), specifically, for this study, the difference in
the academic achievement between white and black students.

Behavioral Engagement. Is defined by overall positive student conduct – following rules in the classroom and a lack of disruptive
school behavior (Finn, 1993; Finn, Pannozzo, & Voelkl, 1995; Finn & Rock, 1997). In addition, behavioral engagement implies a
student’s involvement in learning and academic behaviors in the classroom, such as effort, persistence, asking questions, and
concentration (Finn et al., 1995; Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

Emotional Engagement. Similar to behavioral engagement, emotional engagement refers to an array of student actions and
emotions related to their classroom and school. Several emotions indicate a lack of engagement. These include, but are not
limited to, boredom, sadness, and anxiety (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). These responses can be directed
at school, teachers, other students, and/or a combination of all of these 16

Disengagement. Students who are emotionally and mentally disengaged from school most often are bored, distracted, mentally
troubled, or do not see the value of schooling (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, [NRCIM], 2003). The ultimate
form of disengagement is dropping out of school. Younger students are most often compliant enough to attend school because
they do not have the means to avoid it.

Developmentally Appropriate School Model (DASM). DASM is a list of recommendations that are designed to provide a
comprehensive approach to educating young adolescents - particularly students in grades six-eight. The model is made up of the
following components: 1) Curriculum grounded in rigorous, public academic standards; 2) Instructional methods designed to
prepare all students to achieve higher standards and become lifelong learners; 3) Teachers who are expert at teaching young
adolescents; 4) Organized relationships for learning to create a climate of intellectual development and a caring community of
shared educational purpose; 5) Govern democratically; 6) Provide a safe and healthy school environment as part of improving
academic performance and developing caring and ethical citizens; 7) Involve parents and communities in supporting student
learning and healthy development (Jackson & Davis, 2000).

Teacher Support. Teachers set the climate and are essentially “in-charge” of the classroom. Teacher support is present when
teachers maintain positive interpersonal relationships with their students (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Students who perceive their
teachers as supportive and caring show higher correlations with participation in learning and on-task behaviors (Battistich,
Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997) and less disruptive behavior (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Marks’ (2000) research indicates that
when a student feels supported by both teachers and peers in a classroom environment, he reports higher levels of engagement.