[From Fred Nickols (2005.12.17.1600 ET)] -
Marc Abrams (2005.12.14.1312)]
Give me an example of a tool you use, the theory that it is
attributed to and I will provide you with an example of what I am talking
about.
I'm confused. I thought I already provided such an example in the form of a
tool - retrogressive (aka regressive) chaining - that is tied to a theory
(i.e., behaviorism). That was in the course of discussing the task of
memorizing nonsense syllables, which often breaks down in the middle (and
the same is true of memorizing procedures and poetry).
On a couple of occasions on this list, I've also pointed to another tool -
actually a technique - which entails teaching people to discriminate between
acceptable and unacceptable work products instead of drilling them on work
procedures. The case in point involved developing programmed instruction.
The theory on which that technique was based wasn't really so much a theory
as it was a taxonomy - specifically, Blooms' Taxonomy of the Cognitive
Domain. I've also observed that what I did back then (1970) is a nice fit
with PCT and that PCT offers a deeper, richer more fulfilling explanation
than simply saying I did what I did because Bloom said the level of
evaluation (the highest in his taxonomy) subsumes all the lower levels. So,
instead of teaching them how to develop programmed instructional materials,
I taught them to evaluate it. Those lessons, by the way, were very much in
keeping with the kinds of schema developed by behaviorists for teaching
discriminations.
So, Marc, are you looking for something else?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
nickols@att.net
From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.17.1626)]
In a message dated 12/17/2005 4:16:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickols@ATT.NET writes:
···
[From Fred Nickols (2005.12.17.1600 ET)] -
Marc Abrams (2005.12.14.1312)]
Give me an example of a tool you use, the theory that it is
attributed to and I will provide you with an example of what I am talking
about.
I’m confused. I thought I already provided such an example in the form of a
tool - retrogressive (aka regressive) chaining - that is tied to a theory
(i.e., behaviorism). That was in the course of discussing the task of
memorizing nonsense syllables, which often breaks down in the middle (and
the same is true of memorizing procedures and poetry).
Actually I am the confused one here Fred. First, I do not know what ‘retrogressive chaining’ as a tool is supposed to ‘help’ someone do better or understand, except for ‘memorizing’ things. But I’m not sure how it tells you how to do it ‘better’. Second, I don’t see how ‘behaviorism’ is tied to this tool.
On a couple of occasions on this list, I’ve also pointed to another tool -
actually a technique - which entails teaching people to discriminate between
acceptable and unacceptable work products instead of drilling them on work
procedures. The case in point involved developing programmed instruction.
The theory on which that technique was based wasn’t really so much a theory
as it was a taxonomy - specifically, Blooms’ Taxonomy of the Cognitive
Domain. I’ve also observed that what I did back then (1970) is a nice fit
with PCT and that PCT offers a deeper, richer more fulfilling explanation
than simply saying I did what I did because Bloom said the level of
evaluation (the highest in his taxonomy) subsumes all the lower levels. So,
instead of teaching them how to develop programmed instructional materials,
I taught them to evaluate it. Those lessons, by the way, were very much in
keeping with the kinds of schema developed by behaviorists for teaching
discriminations.
So, Marc, are you looking for something else?
No, and in fact what you just said here reinforces my position. You got a ‘deeper’ and better understanding of Bloom’s work through your knowledge of control.
In fact, if it has to do with memory, behaviorism cannot account for it. But my main point was and is, is that control does indeed ‘account’ for any tool, technique, or theory that relies on either Behaviorism or CogSci because both Behaviorism and CogSci are ideas and theories that are sub-summed in the control model.
This Fred, is what I would call ‘applying’ PCT.
Nice job, and thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Marc
The most important knowledge that we can possibly possess is that of our own ignorance. – Anon
Seek understanding before trying to be understood. --Steve Covey
From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.17.1626)]
In a message dated 12/17/2005 4:16:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickols@ATT.NET writes:
···
[From Fred Nickols (2005.12.17.1600 ET)] -
Marc Abrams (2005.12.14.1312)]
Give me an example of a tool you use, the theory that it is
attributed to and I will provide you with an example of what I am talking
about.
I’m confused. I thought I already provided such an example in the form of a
tool - retrogressive (aka regressive) chaining - that is tied to a theory
(i.e., behaviorism). That was in the course of discussing the task of
memorizing nonsense syllables, which often breaks down in the middle (and
the same is true of memorizing procedures and poetry).
Actually I am the confused one here Fred. First, I do not know what ‘retrogressive chaining’ as a tool is supposed to ‘help’ someone do better or understand, except for ‘memorizing’ things. But I’m not sure how it tells you how to do it ‘better’. Second, I don’t see how ‘behaviorism’ is tied to this tool.
On a couple of occasions on this list, I’ve also pointed to another tool -
actually a technique - which entails teaching people to discriminate between
acceptable and unacceptable work products instead of drilling them on work
procedures. The case in point involved developing programmed instruction.
The theory on which that technique was based wasn’t really so much a theory
as it was a taxonomy - specifically, Blooms’ Taxonomy of the Cognitive
Domain. I’ve also observed that what I did back then (1970) is a nice fit
with PCT and that PCT offers a deeper, richer more fulfilling explanation
than simply saying I did what I did because Bloom said the level of
evaluation (the highest in his taxonomy) subsumes all the lower levels. So,
instead of teaching them how to develop programmed instructional materials,
I taught them to evaluate it. Those lessons, by the way, were very much in
keeping with the kinds of schema developed by behaviorists for teaching
discriminations.
So, Marc, are you looking for something else?
No, and in fact what you just said here reinforces my position. You got a ‘deeper’ and better understanding of Bloom’s work through your knowledge of control.
In fact, if it has to do with memory, behaviorism cannot account for it. But my main point was and is, is that control does indeed ‘account’ for any tool, technique, or theory that relies on either Behaviorism or CogSci because both Behaviorism and CogSci are ideas and theories that are sub-summed in the control model.
This Fred, is what I would call ‘applying’ PCT.
Nice job, and thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Marc
The most important knowledge that we can possibly possess is that of our own ignorance. – Anon
Seek understanding before trying to be understood. --Steve Covey
From [Marc Abrams (2005.12.18.1350)]
In a message dated 12/18/2005 12:06:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nickols@ATT.NET writes:
···
[From Fred Nickols (2005.12.18.1143 ET)] -
This Fred, is what I would call ‘applying’ PCT.
How so? I knew nothing of PCT at the time.
The same way you ‘apply’ the ‘laws’ of physics every time you drive your car, or with chemistry in mixing a batch of lemonade.
You can observe the world from any number of different vantage points that are all valid. Some views are better suited for different purposes.
Hmm. I don’t see how behaviorism and cogsci are subsumed in >the control model. It seems to me that all three are somewhat >antithetical to one another.
You might want to rethink this. Try thinking about what disturbances and reference signals represent in the control process and see if behaviorism and cogsci match up with these two control processes.
What do you see?
Regards,
Marc
The most important knowledge that we can possibly possess is that of our own ignorance. – Anon
Seek understanding before trying to be understood. --Steve Covey