The Future of Educational Psychology

Merlin C. Wittrock, Frank Farley

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138708907
• eBook ISBN: 9781351780728
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Originally published in 1989, this title for the first time in one volume, organized and discussed the fundamental advances in theory, technology, and research methods in educational psychology, at the time. The book provides comprehensive, integrated reviews and discussions of recent advances of the day in such areas as learning, cognition, instruction, and applications to curriculum.

ICHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

In this opening Section, we begin with an examination of the historical record of educational psychology by the historian of the Division of Educational Psychology of the American Psychological Association, Robert E. Grinder. Grinder notes that in the earliest teacher training institutions in America, the “normal schools,” educational psychology was the guiding science, the “master science” for the education of prospective teachers. Grinder traces what he sees as a steady decline in the discipline (“… fate has dealt unkindly …”) from those halycon days, and proffers a number of reasons for the decline. But, not being an optimist defined as a well-informed pessimist, Grinder takes the highroad of genuine optimism, concluding his historical analysis by deriving from it recommendations and proposals for reestablishing educational psychology as a “master science” in education.

Farley’s chapter also reviews some history, and looks at the current substantive content of the discipline. He argues that there are very positive and very negative developments in contemporary educational psychology. The most positive feature is the theory and research ferment generated by the integrating concepts of cognitive psychology and cognitive science (see also Di-Vesta’s, and Wittrock’s, chapters in Section II of the present volume). The most negative feature is the seeming disintergration of “organized educational psychology,” referring mainly to the decline in size and impact of the main professional home of educational psychologists—APA’s Division of Educational Psychology. He offers some diagnosis of the problems, and reports a survey of Division members concerning these issues. He points out that this seeming disintegration may have ended, and that, given a resolve to do so, the discipline of educational psychology can have a “shining future” in an increasingly learning-centered, mind-centered, and psychological-society. He projects a set of developments for the future, and encourages the flowering of educational psychology into all areas of a meaningful, learning life.

Wittrock, in chapter 3, discusses opportunities for educational psychologists that are provided by recent developments in cognitive theory and in educational technology. Recent research and theory in cognition have produced instructional strategies useful for solving or ameliorating some important educational problems. These strategies include (1) training attention among learning disabled and hyperactive children, (2) teaching comprehension skills to children and adults, (3) retraining attributions for learning among “learned-helpless” students, and (4) teaching metacognitive skills to learners in elementary and secondary schools.

The concurrent advances in educational technology have opened new possibilities for teaching strategies such as those world-wide in literacy programs in and out of schools. The advances in educational technology also offer possibilities for improving job training in industries throughout the world. This combination of cognitive theory and educational technology will result, he feels, in extensive opportunities for educational psychologists to contribute to the improvement of teaching.

1Educational Psychology: The Master Science¹

Robert E. Grinder
Arizona State University

Political movements in the 17th and 18th centuries—stirred by decline of feudalism, growth of industrialism, and extension of commerce—produced egalitarian governments in Western Europe. Leading statesmen called for general education as a means of ensuring enlightened public opinion and responsible citizenship. The clamor led, initially, to the establishment of public or “vernacular” schools for children, and, in the 19th century, to secular or “normal” schools for training prospective teachers. New conceptions of child development, learning, and instruction arose, and accordingly, educational psychology “became the guiding science [the ‘master science’] of the school, and the imparting to prospective teachers proper ideas as to psychological procedure, … became the great work of the normal school” (Cubberley, 1920, p. 755).

No one referred 100 years ago to the guiding science as educational psychology, but it was indeed a master science. The pioneer educational psychologists integrated two distinct domains of discourse: (1) development and learning, from the realm of psychology; and (2) social reformation and policy, from the realms of politics, economics, religion, and philosophy. To explain the psychological domain they explored the hidden recesses of human nature; to devise educational policy, they scrutinized the complexities of culture. They faced the same questions that perennially vex educational psychologists: How do individuals develop and learn? How are processes of change in individuals to be explained? What is the purpose of education—toward what moral and social ends, that is, does instruction prepare the young? Educational psychology was understandable then as a unified discipline; both domains were taken into account simultaneously, and perspectives from each were melded intentionally into a coherent whole.

Unfortunately, no one alive today knows educational psychology either as a master science or a coherent discipline. Proclamations of a long succession of presidents of the Division of Educational Psychology [15] of the American Psychological Association testify to its lack of cohesion (Brownell, 1948; Clifford, 1983; Conrad, 1961; Gates, 1949). For example, one of them stated recently that educational psychology is “a field that is now difficult if not yet impossible to define—as a scientific discipline or as a professional community.””Well then so what,” he asked, “if educational psychology is something like an onion—a collection of layers whose unity can be easily peeled away to reveal no core—still, all the peels remain onion and they do indeed go well with many other things” (Snow, 1981, p.l). From guiding science to seasoning in only a century! A metaphor describes the distinguished discipline of educational psychology as having become a pungency for the word salads of educators.

Fate has dealt unkindly with the discipline of educational psychology. Over the centuries, while other sciences evolved from naturalistic, empirical perspectives, the ideological content of educational psychology was shaped by metaphysical, philosophical, and later, pedagogical imperatives. During the past century, however, events indicate that when educational psychology emerged eventually as a relatively independent discipline, its 19th-century founders abandoned the modus operandi that “got them there” in favor of professional responses that have brought the discipline to the brink of disintegration.

My intent in this paper, therefore, is to indicate (1) some of the reasons why the discipline of educational psychology lost its mantle as a master science. My commentary is divided into two chronological periods. First, I trace briefly the development of ideology pertinent to educational psychology from the contributions of Plato to those of E. L. Thorndike. I contend that the pioneers who framed the discipline at the turn of the 20th century embraced viewpoints and approaches that diverted them from insights being drawn, at the time, from studies of cognitive phenomena. I believe, too, that these insights should be regarded as the primary heritage of contemporary educational psychology. Second, I describe three distinct consequences—withdrawal, fractionation, and cries of irrelevance—that arose from the narrow, restrictive perspective toward both substance and methodology that many members of the profession adopted during this century. I assert that the resulting divisiveness contributed considerably to the current malaise within the discipline.

Is reform possible? Is the discipline of educational psychology actually on the verge of extinction? In conclusion, I suggest, in agreement with several contemporary educational psychologists, how educational psychology can be reestablished as a master science and, thus, can be assured a future as promising as anticipated by its pioneers.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF IDEOLOGY IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Origins

Early Greek philosophers sought to ascertain the “first principle” by which to explain the origin of the physical world. Their probing turned eventually to queries about the source of knowledge. Plato, for example, examined the roles of heredity (nature) and experience (nurture). He reckoned all knowledge is innate at birth and is perfectible by experiential learning during growth. Plato reasoned, too, that knowledge derived through psychic activity, being of the essence, was stable and dependable, whereas that obtained from sense impressions, being variable and unreliable, was unstable and undependable. Plato thus deserves recognition as an early educational psychologist; he was among the first to make the nature-nurture distinction, and he recognized the significance of both reasoning and affect in acquiring knowledge.

Plato’s distinguished pupil, Aristotle, is celebrated primarily for his work in philosophy and the natural sciences. Aristotle warrants equal acclaim for his contributions to educational psychology. He extended Plato’s views about the nature of learning, and for more than two millennia, his outlook provided the psychological basis for all schooling. Aristotle was first to observe that “association” among ideas facilitated understanding and recall. Comprehension, he said, was aided by contiguity, succession, similarity, and contrast (Brubacher, 1966). Aristotle expanded also Plato’s mind–body dualism into five “faculties” or “potentialities”—physical, appetite, sensory, locomotive, and rational. He believed the rational faculty to be stimulated primarily by sense impressions; however, its functioning could be affected by any one of the faculties. It stored knowledge, dealt with abstractions, ordered concepts into systems, and solved problems intuitively. Everyone possessed equal potential to realize his or her rational faculty, since it entered the body at birth from a primordial reservoir and returned to the reservoir after death.

Aristotle is credited with giving birth to “faculty psychology.” Although he viewed the five faculties as functionally unified in their service to the soul, medieval scholars elected to reify each of them as a separate entity. They argued incessantly over the probable number of faculties, but they agreed generally on the rational and sensory. The medieval scholars also gave rise to the “doctrine of formal discipline,” a psychological process of schooling which emphasized memory as the chief agent in knowledge acquisition. For example, from medieval times until well into the 19th century, children were regarded as minature adults who were required to memorize and recite whatever was expected of them. Schooling made provision for developing innate potentialities but not for individual differences in reasoning capabilities or interests. Since intellectual processes were presumed to be similar in all pupils, disinclination toward memorization tasks was regarded as willful; hence, instructional policy relied mainly on corporal punishment to maintain discipline and ensure orientation to subject matter.

Renaissance Educational Psychology

John Locke (1632–1704), an English physician-philosopher, championed the doctrine of formal discipline, but for reasons opposite to those of medieval scholars. Locke swept aside Plato’s theory of innate ideas, dismissed Aristotle’s assumption of five faculties, and rejected the belief that knowledge is acquired solely through refining fundamental potentialities. Locke’s examination of how people learn convinced him that knowledge is derived primarily from external experiences. The mind is like a blank wax tablet (tabula rasa), he said, and successions of simple impressions give rise eventually to complex ideas through association and reflection.

Locke saw in his theory of knowledge acquisition a new method for testing the validity of knowledge per se. Medieval scholars had assessed validity on the basis of coherence among metaphysical precepts, and thus, in their search for truth, they ignored experience and relied instead on disputation and rules of reason. Locke also recognized the importance of systematic reasoning, but he insisted that knowledge should be regarded as acceptable and valid only if a basis in experience could be found for it. The discipline of educational psychology is thus indebted to Locke for establishing “empiricism” as a criterion for testing the validity of knowledge, and thereby, for providing a conceptual framework for the later development of experimental methodology in the natural and social sciences.

Locke saw in the doctrine of formal discipline an instructional method for developing higher reasoning powers. He recognized that associationism and empiricism were incompatible with the principles of faculty psychology, but the emphasis on discipline in the latter appealed to him. He proposed disciplining the body by diet and exercise, the character by subordinating desire, and the mind by drill and exercise, especially in mathematics. Whereas Locke’s pedagogy has not survived, his theory that mental life can be decomposed into simple associations subsequently flourished in the 20th century. It formed the core of mechanistic interpretations of learning, and in turn, produced for a time a dynamic dimension of educational psychology.

The emergence of educational psychology was affected, too, by the developmental perspectives of John Comenius (1592–1670) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). Comenius, a Moravian clergyman, recognized age differences in children’s ability to learn. And he preceded Locke in observing that children learn more effectively when they are involved with experiences that they can assimilate. Rousseau, who was born 8 years after Locke’s death, expanded Comenius’ ideas about human development and Locke’s ideas about learning into a new theory of educational reform that was destined to dominate 19th-century pedagogy. Rousseau argued that children are not naturally depraved, as held by the theologians of his day. He presented his view in Emile, which was published in 1762, a time when society was rejecting authoritarianism in favor of egalitarianism. In brief, Rousseau popularized Locke’s emphasis on health and physical exercise, knowledge acquisition through experience, and reason and investigation as replacement for arbitrary authority. He had found in the works of Comenius and Locke a prescription for educating children according to their natural inclinations, impulses, and feelings.

Among the prominent teachers who attempted to put Rousseau’s ideas into practice, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827) developed the strongest following. Pestalozzi taught among the poor, and, lacking resources for books for materials, he was challenged to draw upon children’s natural interests and activities. Pestalozzi believed that pedagogy, as Rousseau had urged, could regenerate society. As a consequence of his carefully developed methods and observations, he exerted enormous influence upon pedagogical practices throughout Western Europe. Pestalozzi may be embraced as the first applied educational psychologist in that he “tried to organize and psychologize the educational process” by harmonizing it with the natural development of the child (Cubberly, 1920, p. 542).

Nineteenth Century Educational Psychology

Until mid-19th century, for as long as anyone could remember, metaphysicians, theologians, and philosophers had dictated the content and practice of instruction. They presumed that adequate knowledge of the subject matter to be taught provided sufficient background for teaching. Who was to contradict them? The pedagogy described in Plato’s Republic, the writings of the Scholastics and the Jesuits, Locke’s Some Thoughts concerning Education, and Rousseau’s Emile, conveyed only personal judgments. Times, however, were changing.

Charles Darwin presented The Origin of Species to the world in ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Dedication
• PART I: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
• 1. Educational Psychology: The Master Science
• 2. Challenges for the Future of Educational Psychology
• 3. Opportunities in the Future of Educational Psychology
• PART II: EMERGING DIRECTIONS OF THE SCIENCE AND THE TECHNOLOGY
• 4. Applications of Cognitive Psychology to Education
• 5. Educational Psychology and The Future of Research in Learning, Instruction, and Teaching
• 6. The Future of Technology in Educational Psychology
• PART III: EMERGING ROLES OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS
• 7. New Roles for Educational Psychologists
• 8. Relations with Other Disciplines
• 9. Educational Psychologists Where Are You? Toward Closing the Gap Between Research and Practice
• PART IV: EDUCATION AND TRAINING
• 10. Educating Educational Psychologists
• 11. Teaching Students of Educational Psychology New Sophisticated Statistical Techniques
• PART V: A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
• 12. Toward a Blueprint for Educational Psychology
• Author Index
• Subject Index