Hi Marc:
I think that you are conflating two different pedagogical goals.
Sniffy is pretty narrow in scope and assumes that the analytic
language has been decided. All you need to do is see a simulation
of the principles in operation.
Skinner is obviously important but the question is not Skinner
vs. "not" in learning theory.
A "theories of learning" course is really an argument about what
are the entities/analytic language that should be used in
describing why the rat presses the bar, runs down to the end of
the maze, or goes left more frequently than right at a choice
point. Much of my course centers around the question of whether
we should assume a "law of effect" is the important answer and if
we assume so then how do we explain the operation of this
principle. Sniffy assumes the former and doesn't really address
the latter question.
I would try to find an early textbook like Hilgard's "Theories of
Learning" (or an early Hilgard & Bower) and use that to find some
classic articles. Another source is Chris Green's psychclassics
web site. Many of these early articles are very meaty in terms
of concepts: Hull's rg-sg explanation of the relationship between
consciousness of action and determinism of action or Guthrie's
insights about the abundance of "post hoc ergo propter hoc"
fallacies in the descriptions of goal-directed behavior are very
applicable today. Apply those ideas to the question of why
Sniffy is pressing the bar and I think that you can have some
interesting disucssions.
Good luck.
Ken
Marc Carter wrote:
Hi, All --
I'm doing a class in Learning and Behavior next semester, and this time I'm
going to use Sniffy (in the past it's been a real rat lab, but what with
budgets and failing equipment, I'll only get one example rat and have them do
exercises with Sniffy).
Anyway, I want it to be a course that does not only the psychology of learning,
but the philosophy of behaviorism. Sniffy learns fast, and I have a 3-hour
lab, so we can move fairly quickly, and spend probably the last month of the
semester doing more of the philosophical underpinnings. I want them to have a
fairly deep understanding of both epistemological (methodological) and
metaphysical behaviorism (umm, determinism).
I'm wondering if someone out there has taught a similar course. I've read a
bunch of Skinner and about-Skinner, but am just wondering what others have used
in courses. I'm also interested in a text to supplement Sniffy (the learning
in there doesn't go as deeply as I would like).
So, ideas? I'll repay with reporting about how it goes...
m
--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
