During my undergraduate career I took an ed psych class as a prerequisite to my degree. I learned a lot about behaviorism and classical conditioning. Building upon last night's class session, I feel that I know have a good grasp on this particular theory. In the real world, I have seen many examples of behaviorism (more specifically, classical conditioning) and see how it can be useful/relevant for teachers in the classroom. I have even seen it with my dog, which I find quite amusing. However, at the end of the day I do not fully accept the claims staked out by behaviorists. I am not sure why, given that I recognize its significance. Perhaps I am merely in the camp of "it's too primitive"; perhaps I believe that behaviors and responses are more complicated than what reinforcement and punishment lead us to believe. In any case, I will not completely discard this theory. I may just take it with a large grain of salt.
In terms of social cognitivism, I enjoyed learning about this theory much more than its counterpart. I can also see its application in concrete, real-world scenarios and also believe it to be useful in a classroom environment. Although I accept this theory more and display a higher level of interest in it, I do not think I am the biggest proponent of this school of belief. I have friends who, based on their beliefs that you can learn a lesson through other people's actions, they would benefit more from social cognitive theory than I would. I had thought about including social cognitivism as a second theory to weave into my CSEL paper. There are threads of it that I would think resemble my teaching philosophy ; but, based on recent feedback towards the dual theory approach, I may just not include social cognitive theory at all. The two main nuggets of my teaching style are that I know my students and that I can help them become independent thinkers. I believe that social cognitivism comes into play when dealing with the social community. I believe that my students learning from their friends and peers can be as equally powerful as achieving mastery or learning a task.
Thus, even though I would like to include social cognitivism in my paper and will integrate relevant components of it into my teaching, I still think that constructivism lies closest to my teaching beliefs. I do not know too much about constructivism, and we have yet to cover it, but from what I have read about this ideology it seems to tick off a lot of my boxes. I enjoy being able to facilitate learning, perhaps more on the "guide on the side" type than a "sage on the stage." I want my students to create meaning for themselves and evaluate the effectiveness of tasks as we go along. Ideally, I want them to reach a level of autonomy that may be guided along the way but in which case the learning comes mostly from themselves. Really though, when comparing the two types, I do not think that one always dominates; I think that most times you would need a little bit of both.
Returning to classical conditioning, last night's class made me think of a regular occurrence in which positive reinforcement takes place. Every morning I walk my dog. When he was a puppy, he learned that me saying the word walk in a high-pitched tone meant that he would indeed be able to go for a walk. I would consider this the conditioned stimulus, because I wanted my words to have that effect on him. Throughout the years, I am sure there have been countless neutral stimuli that have become controlled stimuli, such as me stretching, putting on my socks, or grabbing his leash. I would say this is a very effective examples of classical conditioning. The positive reinforcement seems to work because every time he hears the word "walk" he expects to go outside. There have been a few instances where I did not carry through my promise, but it has not had a detrimental effect. If I were to continue using the word "walk" but stayed inside his response would probably become extinct.
In terms of social cognitivism, I enjoyed learning about this theory much more than its counterpart. I can also see its application in concrete, real-world scenarios and also believe it to be useful in a classroom environment. Although I accept this theory more and display a higher level of interest in it, I do not think I am the biggest proponent of this school of belief. I have friends who, based on their beliefs that you can learn a lesson through other people's actions, they would benefit more from social cognitive theory than I would. I had thought about including social cognitivism as a second theory to weave into my CSEL paper. There are threads of it that I would think resemble my teaching philosophy ; but, based on recent feedback towards the dual theory approach, I may just not include social cognitive theory at all. The two main nuggets of my teaching style are that I know my students and that I can help them become independent thinkers. I believe that social cognitivism comes into play when dealing with the social community. I believe that my students learning from their friends and peers can be as equally powerful as achieving mastery or learning a task.
Thus, even though I would like to include social cognitivism in my paper and will integrate relevant components of it into my teaching, I still think that constructivism lies closest to my teaching beliefs. I do not know too much about constructivism, and we have yet to cover it, but from what I have read about this ideology it seems to tick off a lot of my boxes. I enjoy being able to facilitate learning, perhaps more on the "guide on the side" type than a "sage on the stage." I want my students to create meaning for themselves and evaluate the effectiveness of tasks as we go along. Ideally, I want them to reach a level of autonomy that may be guided along the way but in which case the learning comes mostly from themselves. Really though, when comparing the two types, I do not think that one always dominates; I think that most times you would need a little bit of both.
Returning to classical conditioning, last night's class made me think of a regular occurrence in which positive reinforcement takes place. Every morning I walk my dog. When he was a puppy, he learned that me saying the word walk in a high-pitched tone meant that he would indeed be able to go for a walk. I would consider this the conditioned stimulus, because I wanted my words to have that effect on him. Throughout the years, I am sure there have been countless neutral stimuli that have become controlled stimuli, such as me stretching, putting on my socks, or grabbing his leash. I would say this is a very effective examples of classical conditioning. The positive reinforcement seems to work because every time he hears the word "walk" he expects to go outside. There have been a few instances where I did not carry through my promise, but it has not had a detrimental effect. If I were to continue using the word "walk" but stayed inside his response would probably become extinct.
No comments:
Post a Comment