Cognitive vs. behaviorist approaches to the study of learning
I. Cognitivist approaches
To study how people study on an internal, mental level, you could do a careful examination of what they report doing with their minds as they scan a sentence of a text that they’re trying to learn from.
For example, what does your mind do if you read the following sentence, with the intent to understand and remember the information it contains?
“The cerebral cortex is the site where the highest level of neural processing takes place, including language, memory and cognitive function.”
For me, I do the following (which takes deliberate effort and goes far beyond what I would do/experience doing if I were to just be reading “naturally”):
Isolate and echo “cerebral cortex” and “neural processing.” By this, I mean I’ll look at and inner-monologue the phrase by itself, waiting a few seconds at least to let it “sink in.”
Visualize the phrase “highest level of neural processing,” by picturing a set of tiers with sort of electrical sparts/wires in them, with the word “cerebral cortex” across the top and a sort of image of grey matter resting on it like a brain on a shelf.
Isolate and echo “language,” and visualize a mouth on that “top shelf” image.
Isolate and echo “memory,” and visualize a thought-bubble cloud on the “top shelf” image.
Isolate and echo “cognitive function,” and visualize a white board with some sort of diagram on it on the “top shelf” image.
Try to paraphrase the whole sentence from memory with my eyes closed.
Going beyond this, I might do more things to try and make the contents of the sentence sink in deeper, taken alone. I might give examples by thinking of things I couldn’t do without my cerebral cortex: speak, write, and understand people talking to me; remember my experiences, or make decisions. I’d be a mute, stone-like void, a vegetable; or perhaps demented.
II. Behaviorist approaches
A behaviorist approach misses a lot of the important stuff, but also offers some more tractable solutions. A behaviorist might study things like how long a skilled learner’s eyes rest on any given sentence in a textbook, or rates of information transmission in spoken language. A behaviorist recommendation might be something like:
“All languages transmit information at a fairly consistent rate. But different fields compress information, reference prior knowledge, and use intuitive human cognitive abilities like visual/spatial memory, to different degrees.
Because of this, different scholarly fields may be best read at differing rates.
Furthermore, each reading might need to be approached differently. Some text that was unfamiliar before is now not only familiar but unnecessary. Other text that was overly detailed is now of primary relevance. The text may no longer function to teach new concepts, but rather to remind you of how concepts you understand fit together, or to fill gaps in a model that you already have in place.
Because of that, different sections of the text, and different readings, in different textbooks, need to be read at different speeds to match your ideal rate of information intake. Too fast or too slow, and you will not learn as quickly as you could.
But because your mind, and the particular text you’re reading, are so idiosyncratic, it’s not tractable to give you much guidance about this.
Instead, simply try slowing down your reading speed in difficult sections. Try pausing for several seconds after every sentence, or even after certain phrases.”
There’s very little reference to what people should do “inside their minds” here. The most is a casual reference to “difficult sections,” which implies that the reader has to use their inner reaction to the text to gauge whether or not the text is difficult and worth slowing down on.
III. Conclusion
This line between cognitivist and behaviorist approaches to the science of learning seems valuable for studying one’s own process of learning how to learn. Of course, there is an interface between them, just as there’s an interface between chemistry and biology.
But defining this distinction allows you to limit the level of detail you’re trying to capture, which can be valuable for modeling. As I continue to explore learning how to learn, I’ll try to do it with this distinction in mind.
Cognitive vs. behaviorist approaches to the study of learning
I. Cognitivist approaches
To study how people study on an internal, mental level, you could do a careful examination of what they report doing with their minds as they scan a sentence of a text that they’re trying to learn from.
For example, what does your mind do if you read the following sentence, with the intent to understand and remember the information it contains?
“The cerebral cortex is the site where the highest level of neural processing takes place, including language, memory and cognitive function.”
For me, I do the following (which takes deliberate effort and goes far beyond what I would do/experience doing if I were to just be reading “naturally”):
Isolate and echo “cerebral cortex” and “neural processing.” By this, I mean I’ll look at and inner-monologue the phrase by itself, waiting a few seconds at least to let it “sink in.”
Visualize the phrase “highest level of neural processing,” by picturing a set of tiers with sort of electrical sparts/wires in them, with the word “cerebral cortex” across the top and a sort of image of grey matter resting on it like a brain on a shelf.
Isolate and echo “language,” and visualize a mouth on that “top shelf” image.
Isolate and echo “memory,” and visualize a thought-bubble cloud on the “top shelf” image.
Isolate and echo “cognitive function,” and visualize a white board with some sort of diagram on it on the “top shelf” image.
Try to paraphrase the whole sentence from memory with my eyes closed.
Going beyond this, I might do more things to try and make the contents of the sentence sink in deeper, taken alone. I might give examples by thinking of things I couldn’t do without my cerebral cortex: speak, write, and understand people talking to me; remember my experiences, or make decisions. I’d be a mute, stone-like void, a vegetable; or perhaps demented.
II. Behaviorist approaches
A behaviorist approach misses a lot of the important stuff, but also offers some more tractable solutions. A behaviorist might study things like how long a skilled learner’s eyes rest on any given sentence in a textbook, or rates of information transmission in spoken language. A behaviorist recommendation might be something like:
“All languages transmit information at a fairly consistent rate. But different fields compress information, reference prior knowledge, and use intuitive human cognitive abilities like visual/spatial memory, to different degrees.
Because of this, different scholarly fields may be best read at differing rates.
Furthermore, each reading might need to be approached differently. Some text that was unfamiliar before is now not only familiar but unnecessary. Other text that was overly detailed is now of primary relevance. The text may no longer function to teach new concepts, but rather to remind you of how concepts you understand fit together, or to fill gaps in a model that you already have in place.
Because of that, different sections of the text, and different readings, in different textbooks, need to be read at different speeds to match your ideal rate of information intake. Too fast or too slow, and you will not learn as quickly as you could.
But because your mind, and the particular text you’re reading, are so idiosyncratic, it’s not tractable to give you much guidance about this.
Instead, simply try slowing down your reading speed in difficult sections. Try pausing for several seconds after every sentence, or even after certain phrases.”
There’s very little reference to what people should do “inside their minds” here. The most is a casual reference to “difficult sections,” which implies that the reader has to use their inner reaction to the text to gauge whether or not the text is difficult and worth slowing down on.
III. Conclusion
This line between cognitivist and behaviorist approaches to the science of learning seems valuable for studying one’s own process of learning how to learn. Of course, there is an interface between them, just as there’s an interface between chemistry and biology.
But defining this distinction allows you to limit the level of detail you’re trying to capture, which can be valuable for modeling. As I continue to explore learning how to learn, I’ll try to do it with this distinction in mind.