In what ways has Educational Psychology been influenced by views of "science" and
definitions of the "scientific" study of education?
Educational Psychology has been influenced by views of science in many ways. Both
Thorndike and Dewey used scientific methodology in order to interpret the act of
teaching into a standardized, statistical structure while incorporating the “learn by doing/
trial and error” aspect that science is based on. Although the Thorndike and Dewey
differed on their interpretation of the role of science within the psychology of education,
they both used scientific methods to do so. Thorndike took a more statistical approach,
who emphasized structure and order, where heredity and psychology were combined with
statistics to create a form of education that fit the needs of the state. Dewey, however,
took an adaptive approach in that he believed in a less mechanical view to educational
systems.
Berliner and Tomlinson both critique Thorndike's views on the study of learning. What
are their main lines of critique?
Tomlinson critiques Thorndike’s educational views of learning at first by stating it is not
very sophisticated. It is further argued that Thorndike was taking a very dehumanizing
approach to education in that he treated students (or the learner) as components in an
equation rather than the entity that is to solve the equation. According to Tomlinson,
Thorndike was “grounded in a mechanistic understanding of human nature, the concept
of growth was simply not part of Thorndike’s vocabulary.” Berliner on the other hand
feels that Thorndike’s work was a product of the times it was created. Science was a
field that many put undying faith into, which carried the success of his teachings. That
being said, the approach taken by Thorndike was very narrow, and was close-minded on
the behalf of the influence of politics within the area of education.
What are the differences between Dewey and Thorndike in their views on society,
schooling, and educational research?
Dewey: Believed that the mind, education and society were to be understood as products
of evolution. Our actions are determined by the interactions of “biological aptitudes with
a social environment”. Dewey saw our actions not a response to the world around us, but
it is our strife and struggles that change our plans which cause our energies and behaviors
to change as needed.
Thorndike: Believed that the mind was a complex connection of pre-wired responses that
we have since birth, and that it is only through time that we establish new associations for
those connections in order to explain learning and reasoning. He downplayed the role of
environment and relying on his theories of genetic inheritance and that intelligence
depends on the training received, in order to create the associations we already hold in
our brains.
In a related question, how would each describe the purposes of schooling?
Thorndike would see the purpose of education and schooling as fulfilling and creating a
paternal society, one in which that can sustain a new generation of learners. “the
cognitive elite were vested with the power to direct the masses towards the common
good.” Schooling is seen as a way for administration to extend control and teachers to
contribute labor and loyalty.
Dewey saw the purpose of education and schooling as a social progress that depended on
cooperation. He saw school as a collaboration of learners working towards a common
goal opposed to specialized training filled with obedience.
Speaking from your experience, describe how the views of Dewey and Thorndike have
(or have not) made their way into today's schools. Do you believe it is true, as both our
articles maintain, that Thorndike's views have largely taken precedence over Dewey's?
Answer from your own experiences.
From my own experiences, I can see both models at work in the school systems.
Standardization is EVERYWHERE in schools. No Child Left Behind, state standards,
CIM/CAM, benchmarks, etc. is all based on the standardization and reliance on
Thorndike’s views. Everyone was given the “same education” and “same opportunities”
in order to create the connections within their brain in order to succeed on the tests. This
is the way schools operate now because it is the “easiest” way for districts to gage how
“well” students are doing. Schools are almost a machine that pump in information and
expect results on the other side. This is very much a Thorndike way of thinking.
However, I do see Dewey’s views are being attempted in some schools. It has been seen
that the results from a standardized education are not the results that some schools want.
Many students, depending on home life, primary language and equal access to resources
are all aspects that are not taken into consideration within the Thorndike model, but are
being noticed by schools everywhere. Dewey’s views are addressed in the
implementation of policies such as the “Small School Initiative”, the creation of charter
schools and other methods that allow for the collaboration of community and student in
order to reach the common goal of education.
Sketch out an "alternate path" that could have been taken in educational psychology, and
in schools, if Thorndike's ideas had not taken precedence over Dewey's?
If it was just Dewey who had say in how schools and education was to be carried out,
schools and curriculum would be tailored to how students learn. Community, teams and
interpersonal interaction would be reliant in the success of schools and the individual
success of each student would be seen as the success of the community. This is because
it is the responsibility of all, it is a social product, and if that student fails, it is the failure
of society. It is the embodiment of “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child”. Our society as
a whole would be extremely different, for competition among academics would not
exsist, for it is everyone FOR everyone, not everyone AGAINST everyone.
Describe your reaction to the Gatto piece: is he right on, way off, or somewhere in
between? Why do you think so?
Wow. Gatto is very much a sociologist who has done some thinking and is quite
analytical in is thinking towards standard schooling. And, for some reason, I believe him.
It may be because my friends did not think of their time in school as beneficial and found
it to be a waste of time, it may be because I have seen the education system and can tell
on the first day of school which students are there to learn and be proactive and which
ones would rather shoot themselves in the foot than be in school. Schools have become
labs in which we drill students with the demands of society and conform or “socialize”
them into being the types of citizens we wish to see in our world.
I think that students are bored. The information and manner of instruction is menial and
glosses over the big picture. Why do I think this? Good question. Education and
schooling should be handled in a way that students like to approach. You cannot learn
something unless you want to. How do you do that? Find a way they want to learn. As
Gatto suggests, let them manage themselves. Although I do not completely agree with
that statement, I do think that they should have say in curriculum and technique. They
are the ones who have to learn it and show they know it, shouldn’t they then be the ones
to tell us how? It seems counter productive to make students sit down and do what we
say, but then tell them they have to do well at it, or else! As an educator, it will be
extremely difficult to maintain that thought while trying to appease administration and
keep up with state standards. Schools have become very structured in a world that does
not always align itself in such a manner. Are we setting up our students for failure? Or is
this the way to ensure success?
How does Gatto's critique of schools align with Berliner's and Tomlinson's accounts of
the development Educational Psychology? In other words, how has the field of
Educational Psychology possibly contributed to the problems that Gatto lays out?
Educational Psychology has contributed to the problems that Gatto lays out by making
everything, including instruction and curriculum, cut and dry. Education and schooling is
not a black and white issue. Many factors contribute to the whole of education, and
standardization glosses over almost every factor, and then expects results. Thorndike’s
model of standardization and hereditary cognition is so engrained into our education
systems that we are losing the purpose of education in the first place. Due to this model,
schools are like what Gatto said, “laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill
centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands.” WAIT, shouldn’t
schools be about learning? I thought that’s what their purpose was! But clearly, the
purpose of schooling has shifted to the managing of students, rather than tapping into
their insights and TRUE knowledge and abilities. Standardization is holding students
back.