Current location - Education and Training Encyclopedia - Educational institution - Educational Psychology: What are the similarities and differences between Thorndike's connectionist learning theory and Gestalt learning theory?
Educational Psychology: What are the similarities and differences between Thorndike's connectionist learning theory and Gestalt learning theory?
similar

First, they all do learning experiments with animals; They all obliterate the essential difference between human and animal learning, and tend to be institutionalized;

Secondly, the learning theory was put forward earlier (1898 and 19 13), which simply revealed the essence and process of learning.

The differences between Thorndike's learning theory and Gestalt's learning theory are as follows: first, the experimental basis proposed by the theory is different: Thorndike experimented with lower animals such as chickens, fish, cats and dogs; Gestalt school is an experiment with higher animal chimpanzees;

Second, the viewpoint of learning theory is different: Thorndike thinks that learning is the connection of situation and reaction, and the learning process is blind, gradual and trial and error, and puts forward the law of learning, which is a relatively complete learning theory. Gestalt school thinks that learning is a gestalt of organization, and the process of learning is realized through epiphany, but it does not further put forward the law of learning and the theory is not complete enough.

Third, the theoretical background is different: Thorndike's learning theory was put forward in the United States and influenced by American functions.

The influence of Marxist psychological thought; Gestalt school's learning theory was put forward in Germany and influenced by German Gestalt school's psychological thought. Fourthly, it has a different position in the history of psychology: Thorndike's study and communication is his own development, and the development of educational psychology plays an important role; Gestalt learning theory emphasizes the role of cognitive factors in learning and makes up for the defects of Thorndike's learning theory, but its position in the history of psychology is not as good as that of Thorndike.