learning_theories:clasicall_conditioning
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
learning_theories:clasicall_conditioning [2011/08/25 13:09] jpetrovic [What is classical conditioning?] |
learning_theories:clasicall_conditioning [2023/06/19 16:03] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| [[http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=36337|{{ images:pavlovs_dogs.gif?350x300|Pavlov's dogs. Image borrowed from: CureZone.com. Click on the picture to follow the link. }}]] | [[http://curezone.com/ig/i.asp?i=36337|{{ images:pavlovs_dogs.gif?350x300|Pavlov's dogs. Image borrowed from: CureZone.com. Click on the picture to follow the link. }}]] | ||
| - | Other important parameters of classical conditioning, introduced and researched by [[http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/watson.htm|John Watson]], another founder of behaviorism are: | + | Other important parameters of classical conditioning, introduced and researched by [[http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/watson.htm|John Watson]], another founder of behaviorism are(([[http://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/classical_conditioning.htm|Hall, Richard. Classical Conditioning. Psychology World, 1998.]] Retrieved August 23, 2011.)): |
| * **latency** - length of time interval between unconditioned and conditioned stimulus, | * **latency** - length of time interval between unconditioned and conditioned stimulus, | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| ===== Criticisms ===== | ===== Criticisms ===== | ||
| - | Classical conditioning was experimentally confirmed and cannot be rejected as a learning theory, but its **scope is limited** and it ignores all cognitive aspects. It has until today almost completely **lost its influence**. Meaningful criticisms were also offered by **[[learning_theories:gestalt_psychology|gestalt psychologists]]** who later inspired **[[learning_paradigms:cognitivism|cognitivist ideas]]** of explaining the human cognitive structure. Models of human cognitive structure developed in 1960s have suggested humans are capable of learning forms superior to stimulus-response learning. | + | Classical conditioning is experimentally confirmed and cannot be rejected as a learning theory, but its **scope is limited** and it ignores all cognitive aspects of learning, so it has lost most of its influence today, especially in context of educational psychology. Meaningful criticisms were also offered by **[[learning_theories:gestalt_psychology|gestalt psychologists]]** who later inspired **[[learning_paradigms:cognitivism|cognitivist ideas]]** of explaining the human cognitive structure. Models of human cognitive structure developed in 1960s have suggested humans are capable of learning forms superior to stimulus-response learning. |
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| ===== Bibliography ===== | ===== Bibliography ===== | ||
| - | [[http://psychology.about.com/od/behavioralpsychology/a/classcond.htm|Classical Conditioning - Introduction to Classical Conditioning.]] Retrieved January 5, 2011. | + | [[http://psychology.about.com/od/behavioralpsychology/a/classcond.htm|Cherry, Kendra. Introduction to Classical Conditioning.]] Retrieved January 5, 2011. |
| [[http://www.learning-theories.com/classical-conditioning-pavlov.html|Classical Conditioning (Pavlov) at Learning Theories.]] Retrieved January 7, 2011. | [[http://www.learning-theories.com/classical-conditioning-pavlov.html|Classical Conditioning (Pavlov) at Learning Theories.]] Retrieved January 7, 2011. | ||
learning_theories/clasicall_conditioning.1314277795.txt.gz · Last modified: 2023/06/19 15:49 (external edit)
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
