NAME: DONALD KUNDAI MAENZANISE

REG NUMBER: R177833F

PROGRAM: HPSS
COURSE: PSY213
QUESTION: LEARNING REPRESENTS A MAJOR AREA OF
CONTROVERSY AMONG LEARNING THEORISTS. THE HOW
OF LEARNING RATHER THAN THE WHAT DIVIDES
LEARNING THEORISTS AND LEARNING THEORIES.
DISCUSS
LECRURER: DR. K.C MUCHENA
DUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2018

It is a well-known fact that in the field of psychology, there has been numerous variations
pertaining the principles of learning. It is in this vein that Baker, T.B and Cannon, D. D (1979)
argued that the study and understanding of learning is shrouded in controversy particularly
pertaining the issue of how learning is achieved. In reference to the given question, the what
aspect of learning shows little qualms amongst psychologists as they generally agree that it is a
relatively permanent change in potential behavior as a result of experience. Hence, the essence of
this write up shall focus upon two main groups of learning principles which are the cognitive
approach which argues that internal cognitive processes are imperative to learning and this
dimension includes principles such as the gestalt theory. The other learning faction places great
emphasis upon the relationship between stimulus and response with theories such as Pavlov’s
classical conditioning taking center stage. Thus, this essay will engage in a discussion which will
lay out the varying principles at the same time making the disadvantages and shortfalls
associated with them known.
To begin with, some schools of thought are of the notion that learning can be brought about
through the use of reinforcement. A case in point is the 1911 study by Edward Thorndike where
he initially coined the term law of effect which stated that that certain behavioral responses can
be strengthened if the presence of a stimulus is followed by a satisfying event. In this dimension,
Thorndike demonstrated this method of learning by placing a hungry cat inside a puzzle box
where it was forced to learn to step on treadle so as to open the gate (Naiene, 2000). Having said
this, one can put such a concept into practicality in the day to day lives of human beings and
other species alike. For example, learning how to hunt for the early man during the homo erectus
stage of human development proved quite handy as such a stimulus brought rewards in the form
of food and territory. However, it should be pointed out that learning through reinforcement
tends to robotize the human mental capacity as it assumes that for there to be a change in the way
a person sees the world, there has to be an extraneous factor. Thus, the law of effect tends to
undermine the cognitive contribution of the human mind as the experiment which Thorndike
performed may have suffered from extraneous variables in the lab as the stimulus which was
used to lure the cat inside the box to lean on the treadle may have played a factor. Perhaps there
would have been fewer errors had Thorndike used a stimulus which would have been favored
more by the cat. Thus, it is arguments such as this which can make the theories which emphasize
the relationship between stimulus and response looks their credibility in the study of learning,
furthermore, cognitive theorists use such weak links in the theories of behaviorists so as, in a
way, nullify this environmental based approach on learning. Thus, having said this, this
behaviorist approach need not be thrown out as it is simply a theory which simply seeks to
explain phenomena and it can never be perfect, moreover, it also throws in its weight in the
controversial study of learning processes which has numerous schools of thought.
Moving on with the discussion at hand, other learning perspectives on the other hand rather
argue that learning can be achieved through attending and accurately perceiving the modelled
behavior. This cognitive based approach was popularized by Alfred Bandura’s critically
acclaimed social cognitive theory of learning. In this theory, Bandura argued that learning can be
achieved through the observation of a model and subsequently imitating that behavior without
reinforcement. Using the matched pairs design, Bandura and Ross (1969) tested 36 boys and 36
girls from the Stanford University Nursery school aged between 3 to 6 years old (Crisp and
Turner, 2013). The results showed that children who observed the aggressive model made far
more imitative aggressive responses than those who were in the control groups. Having said this,
a classical study such as this one shows how certain behaviors can be achieved through
observing and imitating others. While this theory by bandura can be a notable explanation of
how the human develops throughout its lifespan, Social cognitive theory has limitations as it
tends to ignore maturation and developmental stages over a lifetime. Furthermore, it does not
explain motivation or personality changes over time. This then creates a vacuum as it merely
assumes that for humans, or any animal species that can be possibly studied using psychological
methods, all learning can be achieved through the observation of others thus paying a blind eye
to the effect that environmental factors might have. Thus, with these shortfalls in mind, it should
be noted that the Social cognitive theory adds vital input in the study and understanding of
learning and adaptation as it shows how development and learning occurs primarily during the
cognitive level of information gathering as Ainslie and Haendel (1983) stressed. Hence, one can
come to conclude that this theory of social learning fills in the gaps left by, perhaps, Ivan
Pavlov’s classical conditioning theory which merely places emphasis on environmental factors
and not cognitive ones.
Another school of thought argues that learning can be achieved through the withdrawal of
unpleasant stimuli. This behaviorist-based concept places emphasis on how species of higher
mental order get to learn through negative reinforcement as they get avoid behaviors that result
in an aversive outcome. This operant conditioning form of learning can be seen as reaction to
undesirable sensations or feedback that leads to avoiding behavior that is followed by this
unpleasant or fear inducing stimulus (Solomon and Wynne, 1953). It is in this vein that one can
point that perhaps the avoidance of an aversive stimulus plays a crucial role in the day to day
lives of man and animal alike as they get to distinguish between right and wrong be it in the
selection of edible food or the picking of mates, thereby forming a traceable pattern of learning.
It is in such an instance where great debate amongst learning theorists as this form of operant
conditioning rather fails to explain how certain animal species such as the city pigeon gets to
navigate and avoid danger in the busy and harm laden street and airspaces of dense cities such as
New York. One may ague that this shortfall can be compensated by cognitive approach to
learning as it argues that the brain creates mind maps which can be rich in detail pertaining to the
dangers that an animal can encounter daily. It is therefore in this regard that one may perhaps
point out that despite the diverging views amongst learning theorists as to how it is achieved,
psychologists can find solace in the fact that these theories somehow tend to compliment each
other and that the academic study of psychology would make a great stride if the behavioral,
cognitive and biological based theories are placed in the same bracket. Therefore, as this
paragraph shows, the concept of operant conditioning indeed makes a spirited effort to explain
how learning comes about, but however in keeping up with the debate amongst learning
theorists, it suffers from shortfalls that can be complimented by other psychological schools of
thought.
Furthermore, another theory in the learning process argues that it can be achieved through the
development of insight into a particular problem. The Gestalt theory places great emphasis upon
this insight development concept as Wolfgang Kohler’s 1925 study showed how a chimpanzee
named Sultan who was particularly recognized for his insight in solving numerous problems
such as the joining together of two sticks as a unit to rake food to reachable distance. This
demonstration of internal cognitive processes in simple primates by Kohler shows how learning
can be achieved as the chimpanzee in the experiment managed to show how certain behaviors
can be learnt through sheer thinking processes. However, taking a closer look at this theory,
Powell (Powell et al, 2005) argues that the chimpanzee in the experiment may have brought with
it extraneous variables such as the effect of history as it was born and raised in the wild thereby
making its ability to exhibit Gestalt thinking capability suspect. It is in such a scenario where
behaviorists would be keen to argue that Sultan the chimpanzee may have developed the abilities
he showcased in Kohler’s experiment through operant conditioning particularly the concept of
reinforcement as the primate might have learnt such a maneuver in the wild through trial and
error prior to the experiment. Having said this, it is crucial to point out that the Gestalt theory
tends to ignore the limits of the cognitive capabilities of chimpanzees as it tends to
overgeneralize the concept of intelligence among different species. Hence, in this regard, one
may argue that the somewhat imperfect nature of learning theories may perhaps fuel the debate
and contentions amongst theorists as not one principle can manage to solely explain how
learning can be achieved.
Lastly, another learning perspective which feeds into the learning principles debate believes that
learning is an active, constructive process. Constructivism is a philosophical viewpoint about the
nature of knowledge. Specifically, it represents an ontological stance. There are many favors of
constructivism but one prominent theorist known for his constructivist is Jean Piaget who
focused on how humans make meaning in relation to the interaction between their experiences
and their ideas (Piaget 1971). Hence, in this line of thinking, one can infer that humans get to
construct their knowledge daily by blending cognitive processes of bottom-up and top-down in
bid to learn and understand. A general look at this viewpoint may lead one to assume that it
suffers not from shortfalls but however it leaves some questions unanswered. For constructivism
to fully function on a given species, there is sheer need for it to have a large, functioning
hippocampus which in turn enables the storage and retrieval of memories (Buckley 1989).
Therefore, the constructivist approach faces criticism due to the fact that in only applies to a
select few species and also at the same time it assumes that all species are capable of cognition,
which not quite the case. Hence, one may argue that the failure of the constructivist approach to
address this issue further widens the rift in ideology between behaviorists and cognitivist
learning theorists as there is no clear-cut opportunity to meet each other halfway.
In conclusion, one is obliged to take note of the fact that the diverging views of the learning
principles have been, and will be part and parcel of the learning and understanding concepts of
psychology. Moreover, it should also be pointed out that the varying theories, albeit using
different perspectives, can to a certain extent complement each other like the pieces of a puzzle,
hence somehow making the controversy emanating from the diverging views a gift and a curse.
REFERENCE LIST
Ainslie, A & Haendel, T, (1984), Behavioral Economics II: Motivated, Involuntary Behavior,
Sage Social Science Collections, 23(1), 47-78
Baker, T. B., & Cannon, D. S, (1979), Taste aversion therapy with alcoholics: Techniques and
evidence of a conditioned response. Behavior Research and Therapy, 17, 229–242
Buckley, K.W, (1989), Mechanical Man: John Broadus Watson and the beginnings of
behaviorism. Guilford, New York
Crisp, J & Turner, R.N, (20100, Essential Social Psychology, Sage, New Jersey
Nairne, J. S, (2000), Psychology: The adaptive mind, Wadsworth Thomson Learning,
Pennsylvania State University
Powell, R. A, Symbaluk, D. G, & Honey, P.L, (2005), Introduction to learning and behavior,
Wadsworth, Belmont
Solomon, R. L, & Wynne, L. C, (1953), Traumatic avoidance learning, Psychological
Monographs; General and Applied, 64(4), 1-19