THEORIES OF LEARNING

Learning is the acquisition, through maturation and experience, of new and more knowledge, skills,
and attitudes that will enable the learner to make better and more adequate reactions, responses,
and adjustments to new situations and conditions.

a. Cognitive learning. This is the acquisition of knowledge, facts and information, principles,
ideas, concepts, understanding, reasoning, etc.
There are two types of cognitive learning these are:
Associative learning. This is establishing the relationship between words or ideas
and their meanings, between words or ideas and the things they refer to, between
principles and the situations and conditions they are applied to, etc. This involves an
accurate understanding of the relationships of things /or situations.
Problem-solving learning. Problem-solving is the process of overcoming difficulties
that hinder the attainment of a goal by using knowledge and skills gained from
associative learning and other types of learning. In this type of learning, reflective,
analytical, and constructive thinking are very much needed. This type of learning is used
in all subjects.
Generally, cognitive learning is verbal and ideational learning.
b. Attitudinal or affective learning. This type of learning is the formation of good and
acceptable attitudes, judgments, appreciation, and values. It is the acquisition or
development of sound moral and spiritual values such as honesty, integrity, punctuality,
piety, etc. There are two types of appreciative learning.
c. Psychomotor learning. The involves the use of the muscles in bodily movement. The
reflexes are especially important because the activities are usually responsive to certain
stimuli.

CONNECTIOVISM THEORY

Edward Lee Thorndike [thôrn´dIk] was an American educator and psychologist born in Williamsburg,
Massachusetts.

His great contributions to educational psychology were largely in the methods he devised to test and
measure children's intelligence and their ability to learn.

By using trial-and-error experiments with animals (Thus, in trial and error method, the learner makes
random activities and finally reaches the goal accidently. According to Thorndike learning takes place
by trial and error), Thorndike formulated his so-called law of effect—the more satisfying the result of
a particular action, the better that action is learned—and applied it to the development of special
teaching techniques for use in the classroom.
The law of effect principle developed by   Edward Thorndike  suggested that responses closely
followed by satisfaction will become firmly attached to the situation and therefore more likely to
reoccur when the situation is repeated.

Conversely, if the situation is followed by discomfort, the connections to the situation will become
weaker, and the behavior of response is less likely to occur when the situation is repeated

Besides from construction of various intelligence and aptitude tests, he is primarily known for his
repudiation of the belief that such primarily intellectual subjects as languages and mathematics
discipline the mind. Because of his opposition to that belief, he greatly encouraged the inclusion of
various informational subjects, such as the physical and social sciences, in elementary and secondary
school curricula.

The learning theory of Thorndike represents the original S-R framework of behavioral psychology:
Learning is the result of associations forming between stimuli and responses. Such associations or
"habits" become strengthened or weakened by the nature and frequency of the S-R pairings. The
paradigm for SR theory was trial and error learning in which certain responses come to dominate
others due to rewards. Stimulus Response Theory was proposed by Edward Thorndike, who believed
that learning boils down to two things: stimulus, and response. In Pavlov’s famous experiment, the
“stimulus” was food, and the “response” was salivation. He believed that all learning depended on
the strength of the relationship between the stimulus and the response. The hallmark of
connectionism (like all behavioral theory) was that learning could be adequately explained without
referring to any unobservable internal states.

Thorndike's theory consists of three primary laws: 1.law of effect - responses to a situation which are
followed by a rewarding state of affairs will be strengthened and become habitual responses to that
situation, 2.law of readiness - a series of responses can be chained together to satisfy some goal
which will result in annoyance if blocked, The Law of Readiness states that the relationship between
stimulus and response is strengthened based on the subject’s readiness to learn. If the subject, be it a
cat or a person, is not interested or ready to learn, they will not connect stimulus and response as
strongly as someone who is eager and excited . and 3.law of exercise - connections become
strengthened with practice and weakened when practice is discontinued. A corollary of the law of
effect was that responses that reduce the likelihood of achieving a rewarding state (i.e.,
punishments, failures) would decrease in strength.

What Is Thorndike’s Stimulus Response Theory of Learning? 

Stimulus Response Theory was proposed by Edward Thorndike, who believed that learning boils
down to two things: stimulus, and response. In Pavlov’s famous experiment, the “stimulus” was
food, and the “response” was salivation. He believed that all learning depended on the strength of
the relationship between the stimulus and the response.

If that relationship was strong, the response was likely to occur when the stimulus was presented. In
order to elicit a specific response to a specific stimulus, you had to strengthen its relationship in one
of a few ways. This is where Pavlov’s experiment comes in. 
When you think of behaviorism, you may think of Pavlov’s dog. This experiment is one of the most
famous experiments in the history of psychology. It is also some of the strongest evidence for
theories that fall under the larger category of Stimulus Response (S-R) Theory. Stimulus Response
Theories attempts to explain the ways that human beings behave. These theories, and behaviorism
as a whole, are not the forefront of modern psychology. Still, they still serve as an important lesson
about why we believe the things we believe about decision-making, behavior, and human nature. 

Let’s look at three concepts that Thorndike developed while explaining the Stimulus-Response
Theory of Learning: Law of Effect, Law of Exercise, and Law of Readiness.

LAW OF EFFECT

Before Pavlov worked with dogs, Thorndike worked with cats. 

He would place them in a box. Outside the box was a scrap of fish. As the cats looked for ways to get
to the fish, they would try to escape the box. Escaping was as easy as pulling a lever. When the cat
pulled the lever, they were able to leave and enjoy the fish. 

Thorndike observed the cats be placed in this box over and over again, under the same conditions.
He saw that the time it took to pull the lever decreased as the cats associated the lever with the fish.
This helped him develop the Law of Effect. 

The Law of Effect states that if responses to stimuli produce a satisfying effect, they are likely to be
repeated. If responses produce an unsatisfying effect, they are likely to be avoided. The cats enjoyed
the scrap of fish that they could access by pulling the lever. If an angry dog replaced the scrap of fish,
The Law of Effect states that those cats would not be pulling any levers. 

We seek responses with positive effects, strengthening the relationship between a stimulus and the
response.

LAW OF EXERCISE

The Law of Exercise is an element within Thorndike’s work that he later modified. Initially, Thorndike
believed that frequent connections of stimulus and response strengthened that connection. The
more often a cat was given the opportunity to pull a lever and receive a fish, for example, the
stronger that connection would be and the more likely they would pull the lever. But, as Thorndike
continued his work, he realized that this was not necessarily true. If the response leads to an
unsatisfying effect or punishment, the connection between the stimulus and the response will not be
strengthened. But Thorndike observed that the connection may not be weakened every time the
subject gets “punished,” either. 

LAW OF READINESS 

Being subject to continuous trials of pulling levers and escaping boxes sounds exhausting. If a cat,
human, or any other creature is too tired to try something out, they might just take a cat nap and
leave the response hanging. This idea fits into Thorndike’s law of readiness. 
The Law of Readiness states that the relationship between stimulus and response is strengthened
based on the subject’s readiness to learn. If the subject, be it a cat or a person, is not interested or
ready to learn, they will not connect stimulus and response as strongly as someone who is eager and
excited. 

These three laws set the foundation for many other theories within behaviorism. Later behaviorists,
including B.F. Skinner, Edwin Guthrie, and Ivan Pavlov, have proposed theories that relate to, or are
inspired by, the work of Edward Thorndike. 

Other Stimulus Response Theories 

Contiguity Theory 

One such theory includes Edwin Guthrie’s Contiguity Theory. Like other Behaviorists, Guthrie
believed that learning occurred when connections were made between a stimulus and a response.
But his ideas went beyond exercise and readiness. The Contiguity Theory included the law of
contiguity, which suggested that time played a factor in the strength between a stimulus and a
response. If the response did not occur immediately after the stimulus, the subject would be less
likely to associate the stimulus with the response. If you get a stomachache in the evening, you
might associate your body’s response with what you ate in the morning, but you are much more
likely to associate the response with what you ate for lunch or dinner. Time makes a difference. 

Drive-Reduction Theory 

Another theory that falls under the stimulus-response umbrella is Hull’s Drive-Reduction Theory.
Developed in the 40s and 50s by Clark Hull and later Kenneth Spence, this theory looked to “zoom
out” on behaviorism and explain the drive behind all human behavior. A stimulus and response are
still crucial to this drive. 

Drive, Hull and Spence said, is a state that humans experience when they have a need to fulfill. If you
are hungry, you are in a state of drive. If you are craving sex, comfort, or safety, you are in a state of
drive. As humans, we want to reduce drive and return to a state of calm homeostasis. 
What do you do when you are hungry? You eat food and feel full. Drive-Reduction Theory states that
when the effect of a response is a reduction in drive, a subject will more likely respond to that
stimulus in the same way. 

Classical Conditioning 

We could not wrap up these theories without talking about Pavlov’s dogs. Pavlov used stimulus-
response theory to demonstrate how dogs (or humans) could learn through classical conditioning.
This is a process in which a “neutral” stimulus becomes connected to a stimulus that already elicits a
response. Once this connection is made, the previously neutral stimulus elicits a response. 

Cognitive Psychology Has Become More Relevant

Stimulus response theories, to be blunt, can be quite simple. They are also deterministic in nature.
No one wants to believe that their decisions are the result of any sort of conditioning. Additional
factors, like your thought process or the experiences that have shaped you as a person, may also
influence the decisions you make. Making a decision or performing a behavior often seems more
complicated than just responding to the stimulus in front of you. 

Although behaviorism and stimulus response theory were the focus of psychology for decades, they
were subject to criticism from many experts in the field. Were all actions driven by the unconscious,
or did the conscious mind do more than we were giving it credit for? Is human behavior and
decision-making more complex than just responding to a stimulus? As these questions were raised
more and more frequently, schools of thought like humanism, positive psychology, and cognitive
psychology were born. 

These schools of thought are not immune to criticism, either. So completely replacing education on
behaviorism with information on cognitive psychology is not necessarily the best approach. Although
psychologists view behavior as more than just a stimulus and a response, we cannot forget the
theories that built the foundation to what we know today.

Can You Train Yourself Using Stimulus-Response Theory?

Teachers are not solely relying on conditioning or behaviorism to teach their students. But, you can
still use concepts from stimulus-response theory to teach yourself new behaviors. Want to make
your bed every morning? Want to add 15 minutes of meditation into your routine? Maybe you want
to replace having a cigarette with seltzer water or a piece of gum. Tap into the laws within the
stimulus-response theory to “condition yourself” and bring new behaviors into your routine.

Readiness: Commit to Learning a New Behavior

Ready to learn new behavior? Great. The Law of Readiness states that you will build a stronger
connection between stimulus and response. Commit to your readiness by writing down your goals.
This could be as simple as writing, “I’m going to quit smoking,” or “I’m going to make my bed every
morning.” If you want to go further, write down why  learning or unlearning this behavior is
important. Writing this down is not going to magically add a behavior to your routine, but it will
motivate you in times when you may be tempted to skip the behavior. 

Effect: Find a Suitable “Reward” 

What satisfying effects can you gain from performing a behavior? For many, the Law of Effect
encourages people to reward themselves. This is certainly what behaviorists had in mind when they
put together schedules of reinforcement for conditioning.

Let’s say you want to get into running. The first time you run, you feel absolutely great. You’re more
likely to run again! If you run with no satisfying effects, you are unlikely to run again unless you put a
reward system in place. Maybe you allow yourself to spend an extra hour watching TV, or you wait
to listen to that podcast until you go for a run. Whatever reward enhances the results of your
behavior (without setting you back from the goals that the behavior is meant to achieve) will make a
great motivation to continue performing the behavior. 

Exercise: Keep Going!

The stimulus (running) and the response (a podcast) work well together. Now, you just have to keep
going! The more you run and save your podcasts for that run, the more likely it will be that you
integrate running into your routine permanently. Remind yourself that routines are not built in a
day. Sometimes, you will slip up. All of this is okay. Every time you perform the desired behavior, you
are contributing to this habit. 

There are many approaches that you can use to form habits. Whether you want to build wealth,
protect your health, or find happiness in the small moments, stimulus-response theory can help you
build habits (or explain how you developed the ones you have!)