Theory Of Learning
Tolman, the foremost critic of Watson’s Muscle twitchism was granted his PhD in 1915 from Skimmer’s alma mater, Harvard except for three years of teaching at Northwestern University, he spend most of his academic career at the University of California at Berkeley, Until his resignation in protest against pressure to sign a loyalty oath in 1950.
He then taught from 1950 to 1953 at the university of Chicago and at Harvard. He acknowledged many sources for his ideas, including his Harvard professor, Edwin holt, as well as Kurt Lenin and his student researchers at Berkeley.
He used mouse for his experiment, for this purpose. He divided then in three groups. They were all hungry. He left free a group into maze. They walk here and there. When they crossed the maze no reward given them. So it is clear that the first group has no method to learn. On the other hand when second group crossed the maze a reward given them. So they learn come out from maze very fast.
First group exercise was continues in maze. It shows that they are not learning some thing. This experiment continued for then days how ever after then day when a reward given them they tried their best to learn come out from maze.
After some trials their standard it like second group. There was also a third group of hungry mouse.
This group runs here and there in maze but this group comes out from maze no reward given them. This group mistakes again and again.
He dedicated a book published in 1932 to the white rat. In 1922 Tolman announced his purposive behaviorism approach to learning and continued to develop this unique approach throughout his long academic career. His tykes were difficult He wished to preserve the objectivity of behaviors movements by rejecting the introspections method.
He also wanted to concentrate on measurable external stimuli and responses without embracing the –brittle excesses of the Watson won movements. While adopting the behaviorist practice of using animal models to test generalized learning principles, Tolman differed from connectionist behaviorists in two critical ways. First he avoided the prevailing practice of treating hypothesized internal entities as hypothetical constructs or physical realities, which would be discovered in time, Instead. He referred to his units of cognitions and the like as interviewing variables, or pure also tractions, rather than as near logical mechanisms. This both allowed this theory to escape the fate of Pavlov’s premature neurologizing and let him explain very complex pheneoumer in easily understand terms.
Second, while retaining the behaviorist emphasis on experience with external stimuli as the primary cause of learning. Tolman rejected the bonding of stimuli, or stimuli and various types as the basic units of the most important types of learning.
In stimulus response theories it is held that what a learner learns is a series of movements. These movements are connected to stimuli either by association in time and space or by reinforcement. In Tolman’s theory however, it is not a series of movements that are learned but signs or expectations. Movement’s successive circumstances never are assumed to be identical.
The learner perceives the nature of the situation and responds in terms., of these perceptions their procreations are assumed to have their neurological correlations, but their nature is now unknown. However Tolman and others have a phrase to express the concept that somewhere in the neurotically structure there is a correlate to the exception of the sign’s expectations and goals structure is still intangible in that it is not yet explicitly described. It is however, an inference based on behavior.
Tolman’s theory is molar in contrast to molecular. By molar, it is simply meaning that its concepts are large and more comprehensive in nature and scope than those if stimulus response theories, which deal with smaller, units. The concept of the atom in physics is molecular, that of the solar system, molar. Whereas stimulus response theorists lent to analyses and reduce behavior to its minimum elements, Tolman’s deal with the patterns, the larger, masses of behavior. He states that these larger connote properties of behavior that will never be reveled by making a molecular approach to behavior. In this sense, Tolman’s concepts are analogous to the gestalt concept that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
It may be asked in what respect Tolman’s position on purpose differs from Hull’s concept that the learner responds to satisfy a need. Both psychologists accept the view that behavior occurs as a result of a need, reduction; Tolman finds a response being learned in terms of the learned perception of the stimuli. For Tolman’s the stimuli take on a meaning as the result of their perception of the leaner hence they become a sign that behavior will lead to a goal a purpose.
But the terms of the sign Tolman has borrowed from the Gestalt psychologists the concept that the stimuli are papered or organized. He has consequently used the phrase sign Gestalt learning to categories.
Tolman basic data are responses made by the learner in a stimulating situation. This why it can be called a theory of behavior. But Tolman’s interpretations are important. The behavior of those who are learning, according to Tolman’s does not show a behind, mechanistic series of movements are theory responses but rather that an intelligence is at work. Mechanistic theories would lead to the inference that the learned seemed not to be playing any part in his learning.