Thinking With Mathematical Models Ace Answers Investigation 1
Science topic
Behaviorism - Science topic
A psychologic theory developed by James B. Watson concerned with studying and measuring behaviors that are observable.
Questions related to Behaviorism
Cognitivism, Constructivism, Behaviourism or Experientialism, or the combination of Few (or all) is effective for learning a Foreign language.
Hi everyone. I was reading about Tolman and Bandura's theory. Has Tolman's theory effected on Bandura's? Can you introduce me to a related source?
Relevant answer
Please Check it. Related theory Entropy and the Tolman parameter in nucleation theory - Schmelzer - theory of the Tolman length - Kalikmanov - Theory in Lemaȋtre-Tolman-Bondi.
The definition of following expressions based on learning theories such as behaviorism or Constructivism or etc. are requested with credit references. Your comments are highly regarded.
Relevant answer
Mathematics teaching is the act of imparting mathematical knowledge, methods, calculations, computational techniques etc by someone( teacher) to another. It may be formal in an educational setting or informal.
- how pedagogical approaches are influenced by the evolution of teaching techniques? - Are the norms of Behaviorism still valid?
Relevant answer
thank you dear colleagues
Hello, I am working on an essay on bulimia in psychoanalysis and behaviourism, does anyone have any good research or information about the theory and treatment in the two disciplines? Atina
Relevant answer
Great question, let me see what i can connect to you.
If you see a message which tells you in an aggressive way "don´t throw your trash to the floor" you don´t do it? this is a research question that I wanted to answer in a higher education institution from Colombia. I wanted to explore the behaviorism as an environmental education tool. Please, if some of you know the literature about it, I'll appreciate if you share it.
Since Generalized AI has no human brain, they must be aware of all pertinent "external" behavior patterns and behavior pattern markers AND effective environmental aspects: Ethogram Theory with its body of 500+ pages of recent supporting essays (following some early, courser, yet must-read, foundational papers) provides just this, focusing only on clear behavior patterns and environmental aspects AND AS THEY UNFOLD WITH ONTOGENY -- ALL with "external" (directly observable overt) aspects AND environmental contingencies (including sophisticated Memories, for context; YET: ALL aspects, in good part, at-least-one-time-seen or clearly indicated OVERTLY). But also see the Ethogram Theory Project and all its References and Updates (in the Project Log): https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory For General AI to use Psychology, this is the only choice. It is also a clear and parsimonious choice and fully empirically based/founded/grounded (and complete for having/providing for the full basic foundation/base "containing" cognitive-developmental hierarchical system). ALSO: This is also completely good for Psychology as well, for a good perspective, approach, and good hypotheses -- BETTER THAN THIS FIELD HAS NOW. I now turn to AI because Psychology is not sufficiently empirically based or "driven" to be this way. (I turn to others who must understand and 'see" behavior patterns correctly and have good empirical testable hypotheses, such as I provide ; perhaps, again, Psychology will find itself FOLLOWING information-processing.)
Relevant answer
What would you mean by an AI brain and what would differ it from a human one? There are 4 patterns for an AI agent: to think like human, to act like human, to think ranionally and to act rationally. We have seen asimo or sofia humanoids that can communicate and interact with humans and answer and make questions rationally. I believe that if we have come to a point where the self-referenced systems would be able to recreate other systems, agents would be close to human attributes.
The use of technology in our everyday activities has gain much attention over recent times and has transcend into teaching and learning. Psychologist such as Vygotsky, Edward Thorndike, Jerome Bruner, C. Rogers, Edwin Guthrie have all proposed different learning theories such as constructivism, Behaviorism, Cognitivisim, Cognitive load theory, Operational conditioning theory. Am wondering which of these theories could be embedded with technology in order to teach at higher institution of learning
Relevant answer
Philip, I have just spent three years doing a full time PhD on learning which incorporated a close look at the learning theories already mentioned and some that have not yet been mentioned. At a summary level, all learning theories come from a particular stance and set of beliefs (Behaviourism, Cognitivism). This is both a strength and downfall. For example, many of the psychological theories look at individual learning only. The social aspects of learning are more focused upon through interaction with educators in these individual learning theories. Sociocultural learning theories, on the other hand, include the social and cultural aspects of learning (Social constructionism, Constructivist including Vygotsky). These learning theories recognise that individual learners are part of social and cultural systems. Brofenbrenner's Ecological systems theory is the most complete learning theory in this regard. However, with the advent of EdTech and its integration into learning processes, there has been a stronger recognition that individual learners are learning within a context. This context may be a community of practice/community of learning (Lave and Wenger, Garrison) such as found in online learning. Siemens and Downes have written extensively in online learning utilising networks and collaboration rather than focusing on individual learning processes. Their theory of connectivism is well worth reading as it moves away from educator to learner interaction to everybody in the community of learning interacting with each other, learning artifacts that are curated, and recognises that knowing how to learn is more important than what we learn. Therefore, it aligns with lifelong and lifewide learning. After looking at the learning theories closely, I am left with the feeling that we need to move beyond their rigidities. In order to do this, we need to have a clear understanding of learning, how it occurs, what we as educators can do to promote learning, and ultimately we need to be research-informed in developing learning principles that work for our context and the learners with whom we work. Thanks for the interesting question.
Although their considerable potential in the construction of knowledge and competence development, the LMS can generate a real pedagogical success only if, their use relies on solid and proven learning theories. In the next part, we will evoke the transposition of the use of four learning theories in the design and development of LMS, namely the traditional pedagogy, the behaviorism, the cognitivism, and the social constructivism. For that purpose, we will do the correspondence between the tools available in LMS and the learning theories to which they refer. As a latter part will show, the hybridization of these learning theories that we have judged more important and relevant to our modeling work can only be a source of enrichment to improve the quality of online learning. Best regards, Mohammed Ouadoud
Teaching Introductory Psychology, I've had students classically condition Pavlov's dog and operantly condition Fuzzy the Alien through website simulations (links below). Unfortunately, Pavlov's dog disappeared and I can't get Fuzzy the Alien to work anymore. Does anyone know of alternatives or other suggestions for replacements? I have a 150 student class so that limits our ability to do hands-on activities. I don't feel comfortable having students purchase something expensive or with a long learning curve when behaviorism is 2 of 30 classes (e.g., Sniffy, the virtual Rat). More broadly, even if not ideal for my class, please do share ideas for engaging and effective ways of teaching behaviorism. Thanks! ~ Kevin
Relevant answer
Sniffy and CyberRat were the worst and so much slower in terms of literal movement and acquisition than real lab rats. You probably already know about the videos on YouTube that Dale Swartenztruber does--he's got a few on habituation, Pavlovian/classical/respondent conditioning, and operant conditioning. Jeff Wilson at Albion College was doing Pavlovian conditioning with earthworms as a class project many years ago, but I'm not sure how much progress they made. For something slightly less basic but still Pavlovian conditioning, you could do some evaluative conditioning with fake, neutral product brands but real celebrities and have students rate how likely they are to buy each product in a pre/post design (e.g., rate product without celebrity and then again after "pairing" with the celebrity). For example, Jared+sandwich shop = probably not likely to buy but LeBron James+shoes = probably likely to buy. Full disclosure: I used a textbook that I contributed to for my Introduction to Psychology class, and we authors included demonstrations that students could work through within the electronic text itself instead of having to generate a bunch of in-class demos (plus, it was an online class).
I tried to ask this question, and maybe it was sent (or maybe cancelled). Misophonia is a commonly known as a condition where an extreme emotional response is elicited by commonly occurrinng innocuous stimuli, specific to the indiviudal. Common misophonic stimuli include eating sounds and nasal sounds. I have determined that there is also an elicited physical (usually muscle) response, which presumibly develops through classical conditioning. I have a few reports of a physical response which was an unconscious behavior of an operant behavior (e.g. tensing leg and arm muscles to stand and point). I do not know of any documented research on classical conditioning of an unconscious operant behavior response. I am a behavior analyst and proponent of radical behaviorism. If you are interested in classical conditioning and misophonia Iwould like to share what we are doing at Misophonia Institute on classical conditioning of responses in misophonia. Thank you.
Relevant answer
Tom, I had not previously heard of misophonia; it's an interesting phenomenon. That Pavlovian conditioning is dependent on the temporal relation of environmental stimuli (CSs) to changes in the ongoing behavior (the URs) and not the timing of USs provides insight into a number of otherwise problematic findings. --John
I am current reading Miller, Barnet & Grahame's (1995) review of the Rescorla-Wagner model. In it they state that "The Rescorla-Wagner model assumes that lamda during extinction is zero and that beta for extinction (beta2) is a number smaller than beta for acquisition (beta1) but larger than zero." The difference in betas suggests that extinction happens slower than acquisition. This difference also does not seem to be necessary for extinction to happen in principle, nor can I find anything in their discussion that either explicitly or implicitly suggests that extinction is slower than acquisition. I am wondering if this is a typo, or if there are good (empirical) reasons to think that extinction is slower than acquisition. I'm not too familiar with the literature and am having difficulties finding any research that bears on the issue directly. Hoping someone might be able to 1) give me a definitive answer and/or 2) point me to relevant readings.
Relevant answer
Here are a couple articles directly relevant to this question with regard to assessing REPEATED reversals of acquisition and extinction: There is other research suggestive of the same type of an effect, although these studies were not designed to ask this question: Thus, it appears acquisition proceeds more rapidly than extinction with repeated reversals to the extent acquisition and extinction performance can be directly compared. I hope that helps.
Exploration of any ethological strategy which plays an important role in decision making and opening a gateway that an organization travels into the economical points is the first way for start up hypothesizing and then description of the relevant concepts. Actually for explanation of a model of the study it is needed to explore and describe respective concepts what are the variables of a study. Some of the time it is very difficult to point some strategies in ethology but I think maybe you can find or guess any "behavioral strategies".
Relevant answer
Dear Leonidas and Noor Edan, So many thanks for your kind efforts in this discussion which are very valuable. Let us summarize the above mentioned issue as follows: As I have found the ethology is started by study in the animal behavior and it can go on human behavior. In this way the most keywords which we can find in the ethological theories are such as: By looking at the behavioral strategies it could be adapted by BCG's matrix strategies as follows: Also it could have been adapted by Freeman's Matrix as follows: Trusting these meets with your approval and should have any further information I will be very glad to read them. Looking forward to hearing from you ASAP
I am wondering whether it has been investigated which motoric events occur when two persons are accidentally trying to grab the same item. Who is the dominant partner? does the back-off movement really exist? What psychological effects does a stop, a back-off or a collision avoidance movement trigger in the Interacting partner? Kindly let me know of any related papers on this topic.
I am currently researching within a field called behavior analysis, which is essentially modern behaviorism. Researchers in this field tend to emphasize different methodologies, such as single-case designs, and often avoid statistical methods. In terms of psychology, behavior analysts are not interested in cognitive phenomena. This is not because they reject the existence of private events, but because they argue that cognitive events cannot be observed; only its behavioral outcomes. There are several papers that address how behavior analysis sees cognitive psychology. They often refer to the misuse of hypothetical constructs and unnecessary group designs. However, I was wondering if there are papers discussing behavioral analysis from the cognitive psychologists point of view? Most psychology textbooks will refer to behaviorism as dead, often with reference to Chomsky's critique of Skinner. According to behavior analysts, Chomsky's critique is flawed, but in mainstream psychology, behavior analysis remain a minority subdiscipline. So, I was wondering if there are any good articles discussing cognitive/internal/private events, and behavior analysis/behaviorism, that are written from a cognitive psychologist point of view? There are plenty such articles in behavior analysis journals, but I am wondering if the issue of cognition vs. externally observed behavior have been discussed elsewhere, from a cognitive viewpoint? I guess what I am asking is, what papers from cognitive psychology exist that address why behavior analysis is obsolete, and internal, private events are perfectly acceptable to investigate?
Relevant answer
I wouldn't say that modern behaviorists are uninterested in cognitive phenomena. I think there is much conflict between behavior analysis and cognitive psychology because the scientists do not really understand each other's view points. Behaviorism is frequently criticized by cognitive psychologists, but it is still more of Watson's behaviorism that is being criticized thank Skinner's behaviorism. Skinners concept of private events is very much in line with cognitive psychology. I think the main difference between a modern behaviorist and a cognitive psychologist is in the terminology and the focus of investigation. Behaviorists seek to know why something happens at the level of the individual and how this is related to the individual's history. Cognitive psychologists seek to understand how mind of the average individual functions and are not as concerned with individual history. I think they are actually two complementary methods. Take for example stimulus equivalence, a popular area in current behaviorism that can appear to be a cognitive process. Behaviorists focus on how an individual's history has led to the development of such equivalence. Within-subject designs are very useful for answering these questions. A cognitive psychologist might instead be interested in studying what stimulus equivalence is like for the average organism. If they are not interested in the development of stimulus equivalence, then they can use group designs and ask questions about what equivalence is as a cognitive process. The Chomsky/Skinner debate is unfortunately misunderstood. To be brief, Chomsky did not understand Skinner's perspective in Verbal Behavior. He heavily criticizes Skinner for being a behaviorist without realizing that Skinner's behaviorism is far, far different from Watson's behaviorism. Much of his critique is irrelevant. It is also worth noting that Skinner describes a functional approach to language. Chomsky pushes for a structural approach. Neither is all encompassing, and both functional and structural approaches can be very useful. I do not believe that studying the activity of the brain, in an fMRI for example, is the same as observing the mind. The mind remains unobservable. We can, however, study brain activity and make good inferences about what is happening in the mind. But what we are observing is neuron activity, blood flow, etc, not thoughts, feelings, and emotions. I'm not trying to say that these techniques are bad by any means. I'm only suggesting that we still must infer cognition from these physiological measures in the same way as we must infer cognition from behavioral measures or self reports.
Trying to build a case scenario on a child climbing stairs. I need a behaviorism view on par with milestones. I appreciate any suggestions.
Relevant answer
Can you articulate your question al little more clearly?
I'm working on project of Token Economy as part of drug rehabilitation. In assessment of behavior modification i need attitudinal measurement also. If any one has or know about this, kindly give it to me.
What are the main differences between Skinner's Behaviorism and other biological approaches, like Ecological Psychology (J J Gibson) and Knowledge Biology (Maturna and Varela).
Relevant answer
Brandon Thomas's description of Skinner's behaviorism is a caricature. Skinner is notable for being the one to get away from S-R connectionism and mechanical explanations. His approach was distinctively functional. He invented new concepts, such as stimulus control, to explain the relations between behavior and environment, and he adopted response rate, a non-momentary variable, as his measure. The thrust of his innovations was toward viewing environment and behavior as temporally extended. Although he never gave up his limited and limiting idea of reinforcement based on contiguity, others coming after like myself, Howard Rachlin, and Philip Hineline have developed a much more plausible behaviorism. See my book, Understanding Behaviorism, for a more up-to-date presentation.
Anyone knows any paper on the subject?
Relevant answer
Hi Please see these links:
Tolman's purposive behaviorism asserts that there is a purpose behind every behavior of an organism. "What is the purpose?" is most often encountered question when we model and design systems and contrary to perception it is not easy to properly understand and define the purpose of the system such that the modeling and design process continuously refers to it.
Relevant answer
Dr. Lupu, I am afraid I cannot follow a part of your argument: "we might consider that every systems intrinsic purpose should be avoiding entropy" How can you avoid entropy? With very simple words, an engineered system decreases entropy because it imposes an architectural and operational order on all its parts, on itself, and partially on its environment. This applies to living organisms as well, as very properly argued by Dr. Riley. Furthermore, my impression has been that the original (interesting) question of Dr. Rai was more concrete. Of course, sometimes we have to derive explanatory answers to philosophical and/or scientific questions in a deductive way (starting out from existing generic theories), but we also have to consider specific theories in order to be able to address the specificity hiding in the question. In this context, I cannot see a direct relation between (human) purpose and entropy. With kind regards, I.H.
We often consider the approaches of the learning psychology from behaviorism and then cognitivism and then constructivism ,Thus introduce them consecutive. Therefore, I think we pass quickly from the effects of behaviorism because of crossing paradigm The question is, if we accept that in the practice of learning there are some levels of cognitive and behavioral and Constructive, do you think ,What logical and sequential steps are allowed to befall them.
Relevant answer
Hello Marzeil, It appears that you are claiming that behaviorism or behavior has a causal connection with epistemology. Meaning that the learners behavior effects what? The process of learning? The amount of accumulated knowledge? The speed of learning? The limits if individuals learning potential? If this is your claim I would suggest a rethinking. Let me explain; Behaviorism in its simplest form: The argument behaviorism presents is 1) There is an external world which makes knowledge objective and accessible by gathering empirical data thus denying rationalism. 2) learning or the process of learning is a universal making learning or the learning process no different for a rat than a human both respond to a stimuli, 3) learning is behavior and as Pavlov's experiment proved by modifying his dog to respond to a bell, 4) Therefore, proof of learning is the change in behavior. Behaviorism does not take into account the learners prior knowledge, and has not need to explain or account for the inner workings of the mind. Both Skinner and Dewey once claimed knowledge is habit, but today we think they meant that new knowledge was gained through good behavioral habits. I think this is where the paradigm shifts am I correct? If so then what you are arguing is that somehow human behavior has an effect on both cognition and cognitive construction. Cognitivism: Rejects behaviorism and argues that learning or the process of learning is occurs inside the body of the brain. Hence cognitive functions are where and how learning is done. Where both cognitivism and behaviorism agree is that knowledge is objective and accessed by way of trial and error using the natural science model. Constructivism Denies the proof of an external world making knowledge subjective. The learning process is through new sensory data mixing with prior knowledge which constructs new knowledge's which is personal meanings. Now given we have a learner with no biological or mental conditions your claim is somehow behaviorism has some effect on both cognitivsm and constructivism learning theories. In essence can behavior somehow be connected to or have a relationship with cognitive functions? I have never heard of such an idea and over the last three hours have not found any. I have seen and read research on people with disorders that effect both behavior and cognitive functions but none on healthy people. Your last part of the question, any logical sequential steps are allowed to befall on them. As to their theories nothing, they are just theories. If you mean the actual human mind and body as a learning system again nothing. If you are referring to a mental or behavioral disorder again nothing, adds strength to all three. Last, If you are trying to argue that behavior has an effect on cognitive functions associated with learning or the process of learning I humbly suggest you may want to rethink that position. Given the range science has defined as "normal behavior" and no direct link between normal human behavior and "normal cognitive functions" in learning I must conclude that all three learning theories have merit. The paradigm shift you refer to is simply a shift from learning as human physical behavior to learning being a process that occurs inside the mind. All that has changed is visibile the other two invisible. I hope this helps Douglas .
Constructivist approach departs from the premise that learners can construct and reconstruct knowledge while behaviourist approach is more about the change of learner behaviour to inculcate learning.
Relevant answer
I believe the relationship between facilitator and learner is reciprocal. Behaviorist Theory The behaviorist theory surrounds fundamentally grounded forms of positive and negative feedback. Pavlov exemplified this stimulus-result theory through his experiments. When repeated stimuli are presented, learning is cemented however; learning is not achieved by the stimulus-result alone but through repetition. This is known as Classical Conditioning. Skinner developed his theory of Operant Conditioning (Gredler, 2006). Learning which is associative comes from the relationship is contingent on the presentation of the reinforcement and the response. The Skinner box exemplifies the relationship of pressing a button that releases food; therefore learning how to press the button becomes the stimulus, and the response is food (Ormond, 2006). Both Skinner's and Pavlov's theories are very similar and both illustrate behavioral changes, resulting in learning based on reward and punishment systems (Gredler, 2006). According to Hean (2009), behaviorist theory foundations substantiate learning has not occurred if the learning is not measurable, learning is achieved through trial and error and furthermore is observable. Thorndike's Primary Law theory often referred to as Connectionism is behaviorally based (Ormond, 2006). Repeated positive reinforcement of good behaviors eventually results in those behaviors becoming habitual. Human beings and animal creatures alike usually react in ways that bring positive results (Ormond, 2006). Good behaviors are reinforced and less desired behaviors corrected through understanding consequences of behavior. Constructivist Theory Constructivism is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote learning by active performance, and is supported by social infrastructures; learning which is developmentally appropriate, individually supported and actively directed by the learner. (Gredler, 2009). Theorists exemplifying this theory include Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, Dewey and Kuhn. Constructivism is based on appropriate developmental, teacher supported self learning.Piaget supported constructivist views through accommodation and assimilation: individuals derive new knowledge from their experiences in the outside world.The basic theories of constructivism in education finally emerged for a few reasons: the overuse of computers and technology in education, the decreased use of basic human functions effectively to facilitate learning, the lack of critical thinking among student populations, and more task-oriented thinking and the inability to apply learned skills to real world situations ( Gredler,2009). Gredler, M. (2006). Learning and Instruction: theory into practice (6 th. Ed.) Pearson Education Hean, S. (2009).Learning theories and interprofessional education: a user's guide. Learning in Health and Social Care (8) (4) p. 250-262 Ormrod, J.E. (2008). Human learning (5th. Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merril: Prentice-Hall
Please give some ideas on a behaviorist's and/or cognitive psychologist's view on teaching and learning.
Relevant answer
Behaviorism mainly focuses on a stimulus-response mechanism based on animal reflexes and responses. Cognitivism, on the other hand, is based on information processing by the human brain as a way to understand how it perceives, comprehends, evaluates, remembers and learns. It transcends the study of behavior from a chiefly conditioned point of view and looks at factors such as rational thought and decision making-- tendencies that are more characteristically human in nature and complexity. That said, it also works on a reductionist framework where input needs to correspond with output on a material level. This is where humanism gains relevance, with its holistic approach to factors such as choice, motivation, responsibility and how these guide our peception and reasoned response.
Human beings seem to have a predisposition to form categories and to categorise the world around tham. This goes back to Aristotle's writings and probably before, and has been expanded upon since that time in many disciplines, including psychology, psychometrics, philosophy, sociology,….. I believe that there is a neuroscience literature which identifies a neurological basis for category formation. I would be interested to know readers' opinions as to whether they believe that behaviorism and reinforcement theories in general operate upon categories of events or on a more individualistic basis? Is reinforcement a point in human (and perhaps animal) understanding and experience of the world at which stimuli are generalised or differentiated? Are certain stimuli differentiated and others generalised? If so, what are the factors associated with a stimuli being generalised or individuated?
Relevant answer
There is a paper claiming that generalisation of stimuli is more pronounced in associations with negative valence compared to positive.
The initial principles of behaviorism has had to make some serious changes over time, yet has it really changed? Could that be reason for concern that psychology wants to become more 'scientific' and lean towards the medical model when there has been evidence that this direction would cut psychology off from what should be their rightful domain, the mind and not the brain. That direction in research would benefit from new models and paradigms of how to understand human problems, yet are dismissed because of the behavioral model. Behaviorism is an easy model. Has psychology slowly constricted itself into a narrow way of looking at human problems?
Relevant answer
I will offer my limited opinion. Behaviourism can refer to a number of theories; Watson, Tolman, Hull, Skinner etc... are all behaviourists. Some - like Hayes and Rachlin - have attempted to move the science on from Skinner (which is where it kind of... got stuck) and have done admirably. What you think is Behaviourism is probably not what most modern behaviourists actually believe. In fact many - including myself - consider Cognitive Psychology to be the damaging theory currently slowing the development down. In the end my suggestion is read from the source; look into Behavioural theory both historical AND contemporary and make your decision based on that.
Thinking With Mathematical Models Ace Answers Investigation 1
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/topic/Behaviorism
Posted by: reifmontering.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Thinking With Mathematical Models Ace Answers Investigation 1"
Post a Comment