[Note: Due to the
length of this essay, I will submit it over two postings.]
Continuing with a review of the different psychological
schools of thought that have had an influence on education, cognitive psychology
is the next approach I will address.
Whereas most school teachers and administrators are behaviorists by
inclination, this next approach probably enjoys the second most favored
position among those educators. Not that
any significant number of teachers and administrators wake up in the morning
consciously thinking they are cognitivists, but given the general ideas
attributed to this approach, I would suppose cognitive ideas probably have a
fairly wide acceptance among them.
What are those ideas?
To begin with, more committed cognitivists are heavily concerned with
the issues of growth or development, as opposed to learning, per se.
With this emphasis, they make a conscious differentiation between brain
and mind. With this distinction firmly
established – which I will describe shortly – they contextualize the difference
between development and learning.
Development is wired into the human make up; it’s a genetic trait,
although it varies, in terms of its pace and its qualitative aspects, among
people. In regard to this concern, there
have been famous models developed (no pun intended) by famous psychologists;
that is, their names are somewhat commonly known and I will in this review
describe the work of two of them.
But before we take a look at representative models (a topic
for the next posting), let’s review this distinction between brain and
mind. In common parlance, many of us
interchange these two terms. But
cognitivists, when they are speaking seriously about their field of study, make
a distinction. Let me describe this by
using an analogy. If you think of a
radio or TV, you might think of a plastic casing in whose insides are filled
with wires, transistors, and the like.
This constitutes these items’ physical attributes. This, in the analogy, is akin to the
brain. The brain is the organ in a person’s
head that takes up the relatively large area situated behind a person’s eyes,
within the skull. I’m sure we have all
seen extracted brains of deceased people.
What exactly is included and excluded from what is considered
the brain might vary among those who talk about the brain, but generally we all
know to what the term refers. The brain
provides the physically required mechanism by which thinking can take
place. There are portions of the brain
that are associated with certain types of thinking – knowledge, beliefs, and
emotions – and this passing reference is a good place to point out that
cognitivists have no qualms about going inside the brain to try to figure out
why we think and behave the way we do (remember, I pointed out the reluctance
of behaviorists to do so).[1]
But we don’t buy radios and TVs to marvel at this complex
amalgamation of wires and transistors.
Instead, we buy these appliances to be informed and entertained. That is, spewing out of a radio or TV is
programming which has its own order and logic.
This aspect of these devices is what is akin to the mind. The mind is the sum total of all the
“content” of our thinking. The mind is
also organized with structured content.
This content is not all consciously “observed” by a person; some of it
is subconscious and nonconscious. For
example, we are not conscious of how the mind is genetically geared to develop
at its own pace (more on this below). Of
course, all of these mind activities are dependent upon a functioning brain and
we can observe in people what happens when portions of the brain are damaged
and how such injuries affect thinking and, therefore, the mind.
So, cognitivists are very interested in all of this; they
study how the mind organizes its thinking and the knowledge it holds and
processes. They spend a lot of time
thinking about how the mind structures that knowledge and what actions it takes
to hold and expand that knowledge. Such
mental processes, such as organizing, storing, discovering, creating,
evaluating, and implementing content, are central to their study of
psychology. This, by necessity, expands
their interest into not only the quantity of knowledge, but also the quality of
knowledge. That is, how does certain
knowledge and how it is structured affect further thinking? For example, how does something surprising or
challenging to present knowledge that spurs an individual to become curious or
creative or apt to solve a problem that is contained within that which the mind
is considering?
Note the avoidance of using the term stimulus – its use is
not taboo, but it harkens back to those other psychologists about whom we just
learned. I might be imposing this
distinction here, but my experience with this issue is that behaviorists are concerned
with what is external to the mind; that is, what is the stimulus, while the cognitivists’
concern is centered on what is internal by analyzing, as best they can, the structures
and processes of the mind.
The other area of concern that cognitivists are drawn to is
memory. Here, a very important
distinction is made between short-term memory and long-term memory. Short-term memory is the immediate sort of
images, thoughts, connections (to prior stored information), and proclivities
(such as the influence that framing has) in which the mind engages. Much of this thinking, using short-term
memory, is automatic and much of its content is a product of genetic factors. For example, if I, out of the blue, offer you
a gambling opportunity in which you put up $100 to win $150 with an 80% chance
of success, you, if you are like most people, will decline the bet, not because
it’s logical or reasonable to decline it, but because that’s just the way most
of us are. We are, automatically, a risk
averse species.[2] Yes, there are some who are not so averse to
such bets; you know who they are, but most of us firmly believe the adage – “a
bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” – as too chancy a proposition. This proclivity is not learned; it’s just
there and cognitivists can tell you what part of the brain “lights” up when
considering this bet and this bias. And
short-term operations based on short-term memory deal with all of this. It is mostly what Daniel Kahneman considers
effortless thinking.[3]
He calls it System 1 thinking, but there is also System 2
thinking which is effortful. That is, a
person delves into long-term memory, the memory that is composed of knowledge
that is retained for more than thirty seconds (as it is with short-term memory)
and is available to apply to new situations confronting a person.
There is something about these kinds of situations that spurs
the mind to mull over what is being perceived and brings to bear memorized
information that can assist in meeting what the situation calls for. It could be a problem, a delight, a
curiosity, or an emotionally inducing image.
In all such cases, at least initially, there is a surprise element to
it, something a person did not expect. The
point is that whatever such an occurrence substantively contains, the person is
willing to move into System 2 thinking which is, by its nature, lazy and
unwilling to be activated. Apparently, System
2 needs prodding to get going.
Generally, it is activated so as to arrive at a satisfying result that
“resolves” the situation in question.
That is, it solves the problem, understands the delight, quells the
curiosity, or handles the emotion so as to be satisfied with what happens
next. At least, that is what System 2 sets
out to accomplish.
Why is System 2 reluctant?
We know it is tiring to use it.
Studies show that such thinking physically eats up energy (noted by the
quantities of sugar that blood carries to the brain when System 2 gets activated). Therefore, it calls for effort. It rummages through long-term memory and finds,
understands, and figures out how to apply those memories to the challenge
presented by the situation at hand.
Sometimes that’s relatively easy to do; at other times it is not.
People who are good at this sort of thing, who have learned
(through instruction and/or experience) to find such thinking enjoyable, and,
as a result are good at problem solving or creatively dealing with emotional
material, can command, usually, a hefty salary.
We hope our doctor is that sort of person; we hope our political and
government leaders are, and we hope our teachers are.
My experience is, though, that most are not. But so it goes. How to rummage and how to enjoy rummaging through
our long-term memory are important aspects of education and some educators are
conscious of the challenge to fill that memory with important “stuff” and to
teach students to diligently, analytically, creatively retrieve and process those
memories so they are able to do important and rewarding things in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment