Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Before 1930, Thorndike derived his conclusions by studying the behaviour of the cat in the puzzle box. According to the author, human response to circumstances when faced by situations where he would be forced to respond and hence the result of a solution was likened to the cat in his puzzle box. He found that there existed a relationship between the response and the solution.
Before 1930, Thorndikes approach to learning was based on studying the behaviour of things rather than consciousness in studying stamping in (the learning connection) according to Schultz (1981). The main difference in his work before and after 1930 was the larger extent of focus on learning in the cognitive approach after 1930 than before. In 1912, Thorndike in his book Education: A First Book, viewed that learning in the classroom would be enhanced through repetition, explanation among others. He added out that textbooks would not allow one to think out conclusions than he can without (Thorndike, 1923). To him, words were more influential than what students saw. After 1930,
Thorndike approach to learning changed to a more cognitive view of things as opposed to before. He realized that repetition of events did not affect learning with regard to his law of exercise and that the annoying outcomes did not affect as much the strength of a connection.
Thorndike before 1930 held out that learning occurred in small systematic steps that were incremental. Thinking of reasoning did not mediate learning, but that it was direct via the principle known as Parsimony. Because the manner in which learning took place in all mammals was the same, there was no requirement for a special process to be put across while explaining the learning in humans.
The following are the theories of Thorndike before 1930;
The law of effect
According to the author, this law dealt with the responses that happen just before satisfaction state and his view was that they were more likely to be repeated. Repetition of those responses that happened just before a state of annoyance was not likely to happen (Lefrancois, 2000).
Law of readiness
According to this law, the condition of satisfaction was accomplished through a conduction unit, where satisfaction would be attainable by conducting if the conducting unit was ready, and annoyance would result from not conducting when the conducting unit was ready. If the unit was not ready, forcing it to conduct would be annoying (Lefrancois, 2000).
Multiple responses
According to the author, the response was multiple and failure of solving the problem would necessitate trying out another response until the solution was achieved. His idea recognized the way an individuals contribution to the learning situation, his or her preadjustments and individuals differences would determine what attitude he would have i.e. annoying or satisfying. According to his thought on Prepotency of Element, Man would also respond to an environment that is complex in nature. The behaviour of man was governed by some elements in any situation. Concerning his ideas mans response by Analogy, human response to unknown situations was by replicating his previous responses to related situations, and that he would follow identical elements during training. The author viewed that man was capable of attaining new stimulus elements of a new situation that showed a similar response and also dropping those elements of the original situation. According to the psychologist, contiguity determined the learning process (Reyes, n.d.).
In an International Congress of Psychology held in September 1929, the author revisited the earlier laws after admitting he was wrong. The law of use and that of disuse were found to be inaccurate and of no significant effects respectively, while satisfying ideas held in the law of effect were retained and those on annoying had no effect. The author also recognized that learning would take place from simple to complex matter, brought out the importance of the resemblance of the learning situation and the real world to facilitate the transfer of training material, called for experiential learning and a focus on a one-on-one approach to students without lecturing in classroom. The following theories evolved after 1930 (Reyes, n.d.);
Spread of Effect
This held the view that an increase in the probability of repeating the response around the reinforced one would increase with satisfaction.
Belongingness
Learning and retaining of association would be easier if the elements of association belonged together. Learning response, according to the principle of Polarity, would be more easily given in the direction in which it was formed (Reyes, n.d).
Hulls theorizing
Hull approached theorizing in a more experimental way by formulating theories that would be experimental and quantized. This may have been influenced by his past engineering studies before his entry into psychology. He relied on mathematical and formal systems (Schrock, 1999) and ignored the consciousness of mentalistic notions. The difference in his work is mainly a focus on behaviour in the latter years after 1943 while he formally focused on learning before this.
Drive reduction theory
According to Hull, internal states of arousal or needs should be reduced or suppressed so as to help one maintain a sense of calmness (Motivation, 2003; Hull, 1943 & 1952).
The theory of motivation
According to Hull, the behaviour of an organism was determined by three factors, namely; the drive as realized by the need state , the habit strength of the organism and the value of the external stimulus that seeks to reduce the need state (Motivation Peak, 2006).
Theory of Learning (Mathematica-Deductive theory of Rote Learning)
This theory brought forward in 1940 was based on the idea that an organisms response would be affected by the link between stimulus and response. The link included motivation, learning, fatigue among other things. The theory sought to quantize the ideas of psychology.
The variables in his work theory included habit strength which could be defined as the practice, ability to perform or past experience with the behaviour of an organism. An example is the reaction to run away after an encounter with a snake after having been bitten before. After realization of the need status, reduction of this status would be achievable by applying an incentive which is another variable in Hulls work. In the example of the snake, the incentive would be the running away to avoid this danger or snake bite. A need state in an organism would result in a variable known as the drive which can be defined as the motivation to get out of danger or act in a specific manner. In our case example above is the arousal to evade by running away from danger.
References
Hull, C. L. (1952). A behavior system. New York: Appleton.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton.
Jana Schrock. Clark Hull (1884-1952). 1999. Web.
Lefrancois, G. R. (2000). Theories of Human Learning (4th Ed.) Belmont: Wadsworth.
Motivation Peak: Hulls Theory of Motivation. 2006. Web.
Psychology 101. 2003.
Reyes Glody. Connectionism: Edward Lee Thorndike. Web.
Schultz, D. (1981). A History of Modern Psychology (3rd Ed.) New York: Academic Press.
Thorndike, E.L. (1923). Education: A First Book. New York: Macmillan Co.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.