User Tools

Site Tools


learning_theories:clasicall_conditioning

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
learning_theories:clasicall_conditioning [2012/01/12 11:42]
127.0.0.1 external edit
learning_theories:clasicall_conditioning [2013/09/30 16:52] (current)
jpetrovic [Criticisms]
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.
  
  
learning_theories/clasicall_conditioning.txt ยท Last modified: 2013/09/30 16:52 by jpetrovic