PCT and Learning

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From Bruce Gregory (970320.1025 EST)]

Games present opportunities to exercise control in challenging
environments where the nature of disturbances is defined in
advance. Notice that a game is an "invitation" that seems to
successfully ignore any other variables the putative player
might have been or be controlling.

Since games are so engaging, it is tempting to think that
educational material would be more effective if cast into the
form of a game. The problem with this approach, from my
perspective, is that it assumes that the ability to control in
the environment of game will transfer to other environments
where the form of the control is different. There is little
evidence that such transfer occurs. The challenge for those who
want to improve education then is the following: (1) define
goals in terms of the control to be exercised (if this proves
impossible the goal is probably inert knowledge); (2) design a
"game" which allows the learner to develop this control;
finally,(3) don't worry about the other variables a player might
have been controlling for before playing the game.

Bruce Gregory

2

After popping off about chaos without so much as a by-your-leave,
let me explain what I am doing on CSGNet. For the past dozen
years I have been involved in trying to improve precollege science
education and am currently part of a team teaching a course at the
graduate school of education on the nature of science for new science
teachers. Recent efforts to reform science education have focused
almost exclusively on what students should "know", but with precious
little discussion of _why_ they should know these things, or _how_
they are to learn them without simply memorizing (and promptly
forgetting) large masses of information accepted as revealed
scientific truth, or even what "knowing" means in this context.

Gary's book introduced me to PCT. Ive read the gopher collection
and am just finishing LCS I and about to begin LCS II
(I am told that BCP is temporarily out of print). It is clear to
me that PCT is compatible with what I know about what works and
what doesnt work in education. Information is a (potential)
disturbance to a students perception of herself; her perception of
her self-worth; and/or her perception of the extent to which she
understands what the teacher is talking about. Depending on her
hierarchy of goals, the student can take "interior" actions to
offset this disturbance. For the moment I will resist the impulse
to speculate on the nature of these unobservable processes. I am
also putting aside the essential step of demonstrating what each
student is controlling. Instead, I am assuming that classroom
learning _is_ directed toward the development of control. If this
assumption is valid, what does PCT have to say about learning?

I have come up with the following zeroth-order prescription based on
my admittedly rudimentary understanding of PCT. In order to learn,
someone must: (1) have a goal; (2) act; (3) be able to perceive the
effects of her actions; and (4) be able to compare the effects of her
actions with her goals. Needless to say, this description applies to
little of what happens in classrooms. If my analysis is at all
accurate, it suggests that learning in a typical classroom, like Samuel
Johnson's dog walking on his hind legs, may not be done well; but you
are surprised to find it done at all. In fact, most classrooms seem
better demonstrations of open-loop floundering rather than of closed-loop
learning and enhanced control.

We have a group here at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
devoted to science education that is funded largely by NSF and
Annenburg. I would like to use some of this work to test whether the
model sketched above can be demonstrated to have any value. Since it clear
that students have a variety goals, only some of which they have
articulated even to themselves, I believe it is essential to tailor (2),
(3), and (4) to the individual students goals. This is obviously a _lot_
easier said than done. In fact, I suspect the first task will be for
students to begin to discover what their goals are.

Before I go off half cocked on this Quixotic enterprise, I need a cold
splash of reality. Am I wildly off the mark? Is my understanding
fatally flawed? What are the obvious pitfalls that I am ignoring? Surely
there is a more profound analysis of learning as the development of control
than the one I sketched. I'd greatly appreciate being pointed in the right
direction. Thanks.

Bruce Gregory

3

This is Phil Runkel replying to Bruce Gregory's posting of 15
March 96.

        I am delighted that you want to think about schooling with PCT.
Doing so will be full of pain (as I don't have to tell you) but I hope
you will persevere. I don't have much to say just now. But learning
cannot, I think, be well described as the development of control. Every
animal has already developed control. Ask learning _what_. Most of the
"stuff" of academic learning most of us do not use as goals, but as means
to goals. Learn how to subtract so we can get the correct change. But
before that so we can get the teacher of our necks. When somebody wants
to learn to subtract just because it is something to learn and talk
about with other people who like to talk about subtracting, without any
thought of what subtracting might be useful for, then that person is
growing up to be a SCHOLAR! So ask learning _what_. And look out that
you don't name something the teacher or principal or curriculum committee
or parents or Newt Gingrich wants the student to learn.

        And, of course, in the classroom, you must not only try to
arrfange things so that you don't block the student's paths to hgis or
her own goals, but also so that you don't block the teacher's paths to
goals -- and the principal's, and the curriculum committee's, and the
parents', and the educational philosophers', and Newt Gingrich's. I
can only hope that those other people won't hear about your experiments
until you have learned something useful from them (your experiments).
Even if a teacher listens to you and begins to glow with enthusiasm, how
can you protect the teacher from the rest of society? Everybody else in
the school system knows that the whole purpose of schooling is to extract
the student's own goals as if they were infected teeth, throw them away,
and insert in their place the goals prescribed by the curriculum
committee, the state legislators, New Gingrich, and others.

        I don't mean to discourage you. And I know I am not telling you
anything you don't already know. I am instead symnpathizing with you,
because I spent many years helping teachers to do some things contrary to
the traditional norms, and I know the stress of it. And the joys when
the effort succeeds.

        So I WISH YOU WELL.

4

Reply to Bruce Gregory, 15 Mar 96

Surely there is a more profound analysis of learning as the development of

control than the one I >sketched.

Bruce,

I was delighted to read your piece. There seem to be a growing number of
university educators that understand the need for radical changes to
textbook and discipline-based lecture courses. Two sources you may want to
utilise are the book and journal, both titled Metropolitan Universities.
The book is edited by Daniel M. Johnson & D. Bell; the journal by Towson
State Univ & the Univ of Mass at Boston where Ernest A. Lynton is the
Executive Editor (617 232 5046).

To me, PCT is consistent with a combination of experiential education,
learning communities and problem-centred starting points. All of these
are ways to legitimatize, encourage and provide experience for students
controlling for learning that sticks beyond the exams. It's also consistent
with Piaget,the guru of my days, concepts of assimilation and acccomodation.

In practical PCT terms, how about starting the course with the prof
exploring what he or she is controlling for: tenure, approval of a
sub-group in the department, approval of all students or a subset of them,
sense of accomplishment, keeping anxiety under control, predictibility, etc.

Then, one could invite the students to do the same. The exercise could
proceed to the questions: why am I controlling for these things and what
does it feel like doing so? Finally, have we learned some things that
should shape how we proceed in this course .... individually and as a group
or groups?

Somewhere in the process, you would say a few wqords about PCT and S-R
psychology and why one is the predominant approach of both the lay public
and most psychologists, yet it's ass-backwards. I think you're problem will
be that university students have built their success on their ability to
memorize from books/lectures and take standard exams. Why should they give
this up for your course?

Since your task will be preparing teachers to teach science, it also seems
important to decide which sequence for learning science you feel is
critical: the structure of the disciplines as learned from lectures, books
& journal articles; or, applications of science in solving problems followed
up by reading. Obviously I'm a believer in the latter and, I do feel that
students, once they understand the shift from tradition, can become quite
enthusiastic. They also need to see it as something important for their own
teaching approaches in public schools. The experiences of many learning
communities is that it helps to recruit students who already understand what
they are getting into. I have the feeling that I'm writing things you
already know!

My verbosity is an outcome of the degree to which I lay many of the world's
major problems on the doorstep of the universities with their constant
proliferation of ever-narrower disciplines and a teaching approach which
assumes: Teaching = learning; plus their rating themselves by how many of
their graduates get appointments at prestigious universities to carry on as
they did. Meanwhile, if we examine the failings of doctors, lawyers,
teachers, psychologists, bankers, etc., ity's hard to blame them when they
are performing just as one would expect based on the university training
they have received. Will the world survive long enough for change to take
place? I doubted it until I read that book on The Urban University.

If you'd like more, there is a piece I put together for the newly forming
Royal Roads University in Victoria. I'll be happy to email it.
Good luck

David Wolsk
Victoria, B.C. Canada 604 478 9795

···

Date: 19Mar96; 14:20

5

[From Richard Thurman (960318.1520)]

Bruce Gregory [no time stamp]

I was intrigued by your post on PCT and Learning (and Phil Runkel's
reply).

It is clear to
me that PCT is compatible with what I know about what works and
what doesn't work in education. Information is a (potential)
disturbance to a students perception of herself; her perception of
her self-worth; and/or her perception of the extent to which she
understands what the teacher is talking about. Depending on her
hierarchy of goals, the student can take "interior" actions to
offset this disturbance.

In a preliminary study of just this kind of thinking we created a
computer-based drill & practice program to see what students were
"controlling for" when they were doing the drills. (Drill & practice and
wrote memorization are not high on educator's list of desirable things to
do with students but there does seem to be a place for such activities.)
We programmed the computer to keep track of the usual kinds of variables
such as response times, how certain they were that they were correct,
amount of "feedback" from the computer desired, and amount of time
studying an item after they were told if their response was correct or
not.

As we analyzed the results of student's activities with the drill we
started to see three general kinds of "controlling" emerge. First, some
students seemed to be controlling for being correct -- they wanted to get
the answer right next time. For example, if they were certain they were
correct and the computer told they were not, they spent much more time
studying the item. If they were not certain about the item and yet they
got the it correct, they also spent much more time studying it. These
seemed to be the ones who were concerned with "her perception of her
self-worth; and/or her perception of the extent to which she understands
what the teacher is talking about," as you mentioned. Perhaps they are
the "scholars" Phil Runkel mentioned.

The second group of students seemed to be controlling for getting the
drill done. They realized early on that they were being given a preset
number of items and they would have to 'suffer through it.' Their study
time between items was about the same if they were correct or incorrect.
It didn't seem like they were answering randomly, (they did improve with
practice) just that they were pacing themselves to get done as fast as
possible. These seemed to be the students who were more interested in
'catching a burger and fries' after the session. (Controlling for
hunger?)

The third group of students (a small number as I remember) did not seem to
be controlling anything at all. One got the impression that their
responses were just random. (Although it could be that we could not
decipher what they were really doing.)

Perhaps this is reaching but it does seem possible to determine that, as
you say, "Depending on her hierarchy of goals, the student can take
"interior" actions to offset this disturbance."

I have come up with the following zeroth-order prescription based on
my admittedly rudimentary understanding of PCT. In order to learn,
someone must: (1) have a goal; (2) act; (3) be able to perceive the
effects of her actions; and (4) be able to compare the effects of her
actions with her goals.

Yes I think that is on the right track.

Needless to say, this description applies to
little of what happens in classrooms. If my analysis is at all
accurate, it suggests that learning in a typical classroom, like Samuel
Johnson's dog walking on his hind legs, may not be done well; but you
are surprised to find it done at all. In fact, most classrooms seem
better demonstrations of open-loop floundering rather than of closed-loop
learning and enhanced control.

That depends on the kind of "learning." Reorganization, as a form of
learning is just that kind of floundering. Improvement -- as in better
and better control of memory, understanding, or practiced acts -- may be a
little harder to find in typical classrooms. But if your formulation of
PCT learning is correct, then they must be doing items 1 through 4 (above)
despite what is formally going on in the classroom.

We have a group here at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
devoted to science education that is funded largely by NSF and
Annenburg. I would like to use some of this work to test whether the
model sketched above can be demonstrated to have any value. Since it

clear

that students have a variety goals, only some of which they have
articulated even to themselves, I believe it is essential to tailor (2),
(3), and (4) to the individual students goals. This is obviously a _lot_
easier said than done. In fact, I suspect the first task will be for
students to begin to discover what their goals are.

Or for us as educators to discover what their goals are and then help them
to achieve them. Outside of just asking them what they want to learn, the
only other way I can see is to "test for controlled variables." To see
what they are really controlling for.

Perhaps this response has been overkill. But I appreciated the ideas and
concerns you expressed.

Rich

6

[From Richard Thurman (960319.0825)]

Bruce Gregory[960315]

Before I go off half cocked on this Quixotic enterprise, I need a cold
splash of reality. Am I wildly off the mark? Is my understanding
fatally flawed? What are the obvious pitfalls that I am ignoring?

Surely

there is a more profound analysis of learning as the development of

control

than the one I sketched. I'd greatly appreciate being pointed in the

right

direction. Thanks.

In the past some netters mentioned that Martin Taylor wrote a paper on 12
levels of PCT Learning. (Or something like that.) I have not seen it but
have seen a few references to it - all positive. Martin ... would you
mind sharing that article with us (if it exists).

Also, following are some references on PCT and Learning/Education which
should be helpful:

Cziko, Gary A. (1992). Purposeful behavior as the control of perception:
Implications for educational research. Educational Researcher, 21(9),
10-18, 27.

Cziko, Gary A. (1992). Perceptual control theory: One threat to
educational research not (yet?) faced by Amundson, Serlin, and Lehrer.
Educational Researcher, 21(9), 25-27.

Ford, Edward E. (1994). Discipline for home and school. Scottsdale, AZ:
Brandt Publishing.

Petrie, Hugh G. (1974) Action, perceptin and education. Educational
Theory, 24, 33-45.

Petrie, Hugh G. (1979). Against objective tests: A note on the
epistemology underlying current testing dogma. In Marn N. ozer (ed) A
cybernetic apporach to the assessment of children; Toward a more humane
use of human beings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Petrie, Hugh G. (1981). The dilemma of inquiry and learning. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Robertson, R. J. ( ). Students' work for a course grade as an instance of
higher-level system function. (unpublished manuscript?) (I have a
photo-copy.)

Hope this helps.

Rich

7

[From Rick Marken (960319.0830)]

Richard Thurman (960319.0825) --

A nice list of references on PCT and Learning/Education, Rich. Here's one
more (a personal favorite):

Robertson, R. J. and Glines, L.A. (1985) The phantom plateau returns.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 55- 64

Best

Rick

8

[From Bruce Gregory 9960319.1100 EST]

Richard Thurman 960318.1520

  Perhaps this response has been overkill.

Not at all! I found it very informative and appreciate your taking
the time to respond. The drill exercise was a helpful example.

   Perhaps this is reaching but it does seem possible to determine that,
   as you say, "Depending on her hierarchy of goals, the student can take
   "interior" actions to offset this disturbance."

Your example is the kind of process I had in mind.

In fact, most classrooms seem
better demonstrations of open-loop floundering rather than of closed-loop
learning and enhanced control.

   That depends on the kind of "learning." Reorganization, as a form of
   learning is just that kind of floundering. Improvement -- as in better
   and better control of memory, understanding, or practiced acts -- may be a
   little harder to find in typical classrooms. But if your formulation of
   PCT learning is correct, then they must be doing items 1 through 4 (above)
   despite what is formally going on in the classroom.

I agree. I have a tentative ladder of ways to deal with new information as
a disturbance of our system of understanding. First, we can ignore or
invalidate the potential disturbance. Next, we can try to accrete the
disturbance. (Memorization is a way to accrete.) Third, (Dag Forssell
reminded me of this step) we can assimilate by altering the disturbance in
some way to make it fit with our existing system. (Fourth, we can reorganize.
This last step, as we all all know is really only taken as a last resort,
because it is painful and hard work. I suspect learning only rarely gets
above the third step.

  Or for us as educators to discover what their goals are and then help them
  to achieve them. Outside of just asking them what they want to learn, the
  only other way I can see is to "test for controlled variables." To see
  what they are really controlling for.

Testing for controlled variables would be ideal, if we could figure out how
to do this in the classroom. David Wolsk (960319.1420) suggests another
approach that I like very much. We might make the students aware of the
kinds of goals they might have, e.g., not looking stupid; getting through
class without being called on; coming up with what might be the right answer.
We could acknowledge the goals we share with out students, e.g., not looking
stupid, and try to articulate more clearly the goals we have for the class.
This might be a step at least in the right direction.

Richard Thurman (960319.0825)
Rick Marken (960319.0830)

Thanks for the references. I'll try to track them down.

David Wolsk (960319.1420)

As you can see (above) I am already touting your suggested approach. I am
very much in agreement with your comments.

  I think your problem will be that university students have built their
  success on their ability to memorize from books/lectures and take standard
  exams. Why should they give this up for your course?

We discovered last fall that this shift was a difficult one for students to
understand as well as to make. Perhaps the initial approach you suggest
will help.

   Since your task will be preparing teachers to teach science, it also seems
   important to decide which sequence for learning science you feel is
   critical: the structure of the disciplines as learned from lectures, books
   & journal articles; or, applications of science in solving problems followed
   up by reading. Obviously I'm a believer in the latter and, I do feel that
   students, once they understand the shift from tradition, can become quite
   enthusiastic. They also need to see it as something important for their own
   teaching approaches in public schools.

Our approach is to focus on the distinction between evidence and inference in
science. In my naivete, I failed to anticipate what a major disturbance this
would prove to me for many students, who are used to simply accepting what
their text books and teachers tell them. This time I am thinking of spending
a few weeks with a concept the students are familiar with and which they can
manipulate directly; floating and sinking worked well last fall. I'll try
to get them to consider what constitutes an adequate model of the phenomena
involved and to wrestle with their own understanding of what is happening.
My hope is that process will sensitize them to the problems of goals and
what they mean for understanding.

   If you'd like more, there is a piece I put together for the newly forming
   Royal Roads University in Victoria. I'll be happy to email it.

I would very much like a copy. My address is bgregory@cfa.harvard.edu

Bruce Gregory

9

[From Richard Thurman (960319.1400)]

Phil Runkel

Everybody else in
the school system knows that the whole purpose of schooling is to extract
the student's own goals as if they were infected teeth, throw them away,
and insert in their place the goals prescribed by the curriculum
committee, the state legislators, New Gingrich, and others.

I have reflected on the above statement for a couple of days and I realize
that it does not sit just right. I am wondering about the impropriety of
prescribing goals to students. While I am sure doing so sets up
'conflict' within the student, it seems to me that this kind of conflict
is just part of life. Say, for instance I want to spend a quiet Saturday
afternoon reading about my favorite subject (PCT) but instead my (well
meaning) spouse hands me a list of her favorite "honey-do's." Do I feel a
conflict in goals? To be honest -- yes. Is this bad? It does not seem
to be good or bad -- just natural.

Likewise in public education. As responsible adults, we have been saddled
with the task of prescribing to students the goals they should be working
on. Is there potential conflict with their (the student's) goals? Yes -
Probably. Is that bad or just a consequence of living in this goal
limiting world. We can't do everything we want to do. We can't learn
everything we want to (in public education). I don't care for Newt
either, but I don't think we can blame this one on him.

Perhaps I'm missing the point of the above quote.

David Wolsk [ ]

Speaking of how to structure the beginning of a PCT-based course. David
Wolsk wrote:

Somewhere in the process, you would say a few wqords about PCT and S-R
psychology and why one is the predominant approach of both the lay public
and most psychologists, yet it's ass-backwards. I think you're problem

will

be that university students have built their success on their ability to
memorize from books/lectures and take standard exams. Why should they

give

this up for your course?

By the time students are in "Higher Education" they are indeed masters at
manipulating the standard textbook/lecture/exam game. That's what twelve
years of public school education has taught them. Imagine what it would
feel like to suddenly have that ability to excel taken away! No wonder
they would refuse to give it up.

However I am aware of one University course where the professor walked
into class on the first day and told the students in no uncertain terms
that the University did not like the fact that the majority of his
students received very high grades. He told them that the University was
obligating him to give grades "on the curve." Therefore everyone in the
class was assigned a grade on the spot. Some got A's most got C's and a
few received D's. Care to guess how many students dropped the class by
the second day? Not one! Of course the professor was not just another
instructor -- he was a true scholar and the students just wanted to learn
from him. For a brief shining semester, they transformed themselves in to
scholars as well.

Best!
Rich

10

[From Bruce Gregory 960320.1000 EST]

Richard Thurman (960319.1400)

   Likewise in public education. As responsible adults, we have been saddled
   with the task of prescribing to students the goals they should be working
   on. Is there potential conflict with their (the student's) goals? Yes -
   Probably. Is that bad or just a consequence of living in this goal
   limiting world. We can't do everything we want to do. We can't learn
   everything we want to (in public education). I don't care for Newt
   either, but I don't think we can blame this one on him.

Phil can perfectly well speak for himself, but I do have a response
to your query to him. I think that one major problem is that
students think they have (or can adopt) the same goals as their
teachers. In fact, both students and teachers are often unaware of
their goals. Working to make goals explicit gives both a chance to
see if there are goals they can adopt and realize even with the
constraints imposed by outside control efforts.

Bruce Gregory

11

[Bruce Gregory 960322.1112 EST]

David Wolsk (960321.0715)

   But then we get into the imprecision of language where the approach of
   George Lakoff's book "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things" complicates it all,
   especially the superficial knowledge of science as an absolute which we have
   so often propagated for in schools. However, the sooner children learn to
   accept and manage ambiguity and personal meanings the better.

I don't disagree, but I think that one of the virtues of learning about
science is that it brings, or should bring, an appreciation of the power
that comes from impersonal meanings. PCT is so powerful because it gives
meaning to "control" that can unambiguously and operationally specified
(The Test). Bill P. occasionally ruminates on calling PCT something else
because "control" has so many personal meanings. We have wrestled this
problem when it comes to terms in physics such as velocity, acceleration,
and energy, which also have a wealth of informal and personal meanings.
(Students quickly learn that invoking the mantra "energy" gives an appear-
ance of understanding.) We decided, as Bill has, the that connections of
technical terms to every day experience are just too important to sacrifice
in the pursuit of impersonal meanings.

   For young scientists, the elementary school students, I'm a great believer
   in the kitchen school of laboratory science. There is almost nothing of
   importance that can't be experienced in the kitchen! Since most of us are
   in the kitchen quite frequently, old learning is constantly reinforced and
   new learning constantly taking place.

I heartily agree.

   Bruce, with Harvard being the home-base of Gardner's Project Spectrum, I
   think I may be going on and on about stuff where you already have all the
   personal meanings you need.

Please continue to go on. We have surprisingly little contact with the
Ed School (despite teaching a course there). For some reason, science
education has a very low place in their hierarchy of goals. I must confess
that I have trouble taking away something useful from reading Gardner. Quite
the opposite experience from reading Powers. It must be a matter of differing
styles that I have been unable to get beyond.

Richard Thurman (960321.0830)

   However, there will come a time when you as a 'science education
   curriculum designer' are going to impose your own ideas about what science
   education should be. In fact, it seem you are about to. You stated that
   there is already two much emphasis on "what" students should know but
   almost no discussion of "why" students should know these things. You have
   also stated that students often simply memorize and promptly forget large
   masses of information "accepted as revealed scientific truth." It seems
   to me that you have in mind a curriculum design that will be quite
   different than the usual lecture/read/memorize one. Won't your 'doing'
   curriculum come in conflict with those who advocate a 'knowing'
   curriculum. Won't your goals extract the goals of students and teachers
   (who may be 'knowers' and not 'doers') like so many bad teeth?

I agree with what I think Phil Runkel would say here. It is not so much
I am opposed to a "knowing" curriculum as it is that I am too aware that
a knowing curriculum simply doesn't work. Cramming is so popular because
the decay of memorized knowledge is usually so rapid. (I occassionally have
the heretical notion that if we asked students to "learn" a pseduo-science
such as phrenology, they would accomplish just as much as we do asking them
to learn "real" sciences. (Their grades wouldn't look much different either.)
I have asked many educators and scientists _why_ students should be required
to learn to identify the three major types of rocks (sedentary, metamorphic,
and ingenious, according to one teacher) or to be forced to take what another
teacher calls "the forced march through the phyla" in biology. Not one
person has come up with an answer that couldn't equally well be given by
a music, art, geography, or history teacher. (In fact, in my view, the
latter have a much stronger case than science educators.) Science educators
have had a free ride since Sputnik because the public believes that science
and mathematics are important. It seems to be in no one's self interest to
challenge that belief.

   I'm not saying that your science education ideas are incorrect. In fact I
   tend to agree with them. I'm just saying that this kind of basic conflict
   is part and parcel with public education - actually - with life. We
   cannot get around it. Only appreciate it for what it is -- the
   consequence of control.

I heartily agree.

Bruce Gregory